[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Doxygen and embedded jquery problem, how to solve?

Quoting Helmut Grohne (2014-10-30 23:59:11)
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 03:59:44PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> IMO the proper solution is for Debian packaging of doxygen to 
>> untangle jQuery from extensions, depend on + symlink the jQuery part, 
>> provide the extensions as a shared package, and patch doxygen code to 
>> generate docuementation referencing each separately instead of the 
>> entangled one.
> Yeah, I had that opinion as well before looking into implementing it. 
> In the mean time I did remove several embedded copies of jquery from 
> Doxygen, just not the one we are discussing here.


> Maybe you could help doing the missing work by packaging the missing 
> javascript libraries? It seems futile to discuss whether doxygen 
> should set symlinks to files that do not exist.

I could indeed help with that.  Or others in the Javascript team.

Please file RFP bugs for your needs (or if already filed please 
reference which are the relevant ones).

>> ...but seems from that README that maintainers of doxygen have 
>> already reflected on this and disagrees.
> I do not disagree with the goal. I just disagree that doing the work 
> is worth the^Wmy effort. I.e. patches welcome.

Fair enough.

>> I suggest (but won't drive it myself) to file a bug against doxygen 
>> to kindly reconsider...
> Please don't. I'd have to merge it into #736432.

Ah, cool!

Perhaps mention that bug in the README, to better encourage those 
running into this issue who might have time and interest in helping out.

>> ...and until eventually maybe progress on that front, either a) try 
>> untangle the jquery+extensions code yourself for each and every 
>> single package using doxygen, or b) embrace same attitude as doxygen 
>> maintainers and add lintian suppressions referencing doxygen README 
>> as comment.
> I don't think it makes any sense to untangle this in individual 
> packages. If anyone puts up that work, it should happen in Doxygen.

Right - I fully agree, and mentioned the alternative only in case the 
preferred approach was unacceptable by Doxygen maintainers - which you 
have now clearly stated is *not* the case.  Sorry if that was not clear 
from how I wrote it.

> A lintian suppression is not necessary, because this is a bug in
> lintian: #736360.
> Also packages shouldn't set Built-Using: doxygen. That's not what
> Built-Using was created for.

Thanks for clarifying.

 - Jonas

 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: signature

Reply to: