Re: Kdevelop & htdig
On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 04:45:22PM -0600, Kris Huber wrote:
> Richard Hector wrote:
>
> > I have problems right at the end (I think) of Kdevelop Setup - it wants
> > to use htdig to index all the docs (and I think that's a good idea), but
> > complains about the lack of a htdig.conf file.
> >
> > From googling, I've discovered that at least at one stage, a README
> > file
> > on this topic existed in /usr/share/doc/kdevelop (which it doesn't now),
> > which said a custom version of htdig was required. An examples directory
> > was also there, with the conf file.
> >
> > Does the fact that these things are missing from the package I've just
> > installed mean that this issue has changed, and it should all work
> > smoothly, or has the package just lost some docs along the way, and I
> > should follow the archived docs I found on the web?
>
> I ran into the same problem. Upon being unable to find the modified
> version of htdig where /usr/share/doc/kdevelop/README-htdig.Debian said
> it was, I assumed the htdig in stable was now modified and so I followed
> the rest of the steps. However, it still didn't fully work. The
> htdig.conf file is found, but a bunch of "not changed" messages scroll
> by as htdig does its work (which may be normal--I'm not sure). But some
> of the files like synonyms.db aren't found when I do a help search in
> kdevelop. The message says something about a "DB2" error.
>
> I'm wondering if you solved the problem or moved on to kdevelop 3
> perhaps? I like to stay with the stable distribution of things when at
> all possible due to some bad luck I had a few years ago mixing things
> up. Anyone know right off what kind of problems I'll have running
> kdevelop 3? And what problems I may have backing kdevelop 3 and
> packages it depends on back out? I'm running kernel 2.4.18-bf2.4 that
> is part of the stable distribution.
I'm afraid I gave up. I have a bad habit of starting far too many projects
all at once; many of them inevitably get dropped. Playing with Kdevelop
was one of them. Sorry :-(
Richard
Reply to: