Hi, On Fri, 6 Mar 2009, John Tapsell wrote: > 2009/3/6 Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx>: > > > On Fri, 6 Mar 2009, Jakub Narebski wrote: > > > >> Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > >> > On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 01:38:27PM +0100, Matthieu Moy wrote: > >> > > >> >>>> * we have lots other files in git.git that are autogenerated (the > >> >>>> documentation files, for example) > >> >>> > >> >>> I'm not aware of any auto-generated files that are checked in. Can you > >> >>> give an example? > >> >> > >> >> man pages and html docs are commited, but in a separate branch. IOW, > >> >> Junio abuses Git as a distribution mechanism, but keeps it totally > >> >> separate from the actual sources. > >> > > >> > OK, true; but that is a totally different mechanism, unless the proposal > >> > is to autobuild a "this would be the release tarball" branch similar to > >> > html and man branches. > >> > >> I thnk the proposal was to have 'configure' branch with configure > >> script built, similar to how 'html' and 'man' branches have built > >> documentation in HTML and manpages format. > >> > >> However while toolchain needed to produce documentation (asciidoc + > >> xmlto) isn't, I think, something very common, in my opinion autoconf is > >> something that is present on systems containing other build tools > >> required to build git from sources. So 'configure' branch is not, I > >> think, as necessary as 'html' and 'man' branches; additionally 'html' > >> branch (or the repository used to build documentation, or the byproduct > >> of building documentation) is used to generate on-line docs for git. > > > > Plus, keep in mind that autoconf support is only an afterthought in Git; > > Just running "make" is supposed to work. If it does not, patches are > > certainly welcome, I think. > > Well now that you mention it.. :-) > > It doesn't check for the existance of asciidoc, but blindly assumes it > exists. And even if you do have asciidoc, there's a good chance that > you have the wrong version. The INSTALL file says that asciidoc > requires 8.2.7 but most distros (debian, ubuntu. probably other) have > 8.2.6. > If you compile the docs with the wrong asciidoc version, there is no > warning or error at all. It just builds incorrect man pages. Frankly, I was talking about "make". I never needed asciidoc there. Besides, if it is really an itch of yours, maybe you can come up with a patch checking for a correct asciidoc version? Only if asciidoc would be needed at all, of course. Ciao, Dscho
