Re: Doxygen has 3 RC bugs preventing packages to build - is droping documentation a sensible option?
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 01:09:46PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I really want to update cimg since a long time, missing several upstream
> releases but I cimg does not build due to #836168. In the bug report it
> was also suggested to use sphinx as doxygen replacement but I'm not sure
> how sensible this might be since upstream is using doxygen.
>
> Since there is no real progress with doxygen (3 RC bugs no relevant
> traffic) I seriously consider dropping the doxygen documentation for cimg
> at all and recommend users to live with the online documentation. I do
> not consider this a good solution but if cimg will not be uploaded soon
> this will also affect opencv transition.
>
> What do you think about the "dropping documentation since it breaks the
> package build" idea?
Without checking all the details and facts, if you are facing with any
document building problem, please at least check if this problem can can
be worked around by disabling PDF (and PS) file generation.
In general, HTML and plain text generation are more robust.
In my experience, PDF generation (possibly via LaTeX) is very prone for
failure due to TeX/LaTeX tool chain. The release time-line and such
problem does not get as much special case treatment as GCC regression
case. (Sometimes generated PDF are useful mostly...)
Please consider building HTML only when you face such a problem and wish
to get the package released. Your case seems to be LaTeX related.
Regards,
Osamu
Reply to: