-
2012.07.26 03:12 "Re: [Tiff] Confused about 4.0 API changes: TIFFField vs TIFFFieldInfo", by Bob Friesenhahn
-
2012.07.26 19:43 "Re: [Tiff] Confused about 4.0 API changes: TIFFField vs TIFFFieldInfo", by Tom Lane
- 2012.07.26 20:18 "Re: [Tiff] Confused about 4.0 API changes: TIFFField vs TIFFFieldInfo", by Bob Friesenhahn
- 2012.07.29 16:34 "Re: [Tiff] Confused about 4.0 API changes: TIFFField vs TIFFFieldInfo", by Toby Thain
-
2012.07.26 19:43 "Re: [Tiff] Confused about 4.0 API changes: TIFFField vs TIFFFieldInfo", by Tom Lane
2012.07.29 16:34 "Re: [Tiff] Confused about 4.0 API changes: TIFFField vs TIFFFieldInfo", by Toby Thain
On 29/07/12 12:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Your changes look good to me. I am also no man format expert but 'man >> 7 man' has helped in the past. How about you commit these changes to
>> CVS (since it seems that you can) and we can muddle through any fine >> tuning of the manual pages afterward?
>
> Done.
>
>> It does seem that the HTML version of the manual pages is produced by >> groff. I have not done this before but it shouldn't be too difficult.
>
> It appears the thing to do is go into html/man and do "make htmldoc".
>
>> The libtiff configure script uses --enable-maintainer-mode so if this >> configuration option is supplied, we could add Makefile rules to
>> automatically update the HTML files if a man page has been edited and >> the suitable tools are available.
>
> I'm a bit hesitant to suggest that this should happen automatically.
> The output produced by different versions of groff seems to be > different in many details, so we'd wind up with huge CVS churn anytime
> somebody runs a build on a different machine. (Although it's fair to > ask whether these derived files ought to be in CVS at all.
In my opinion they should not.
> Maybe the
> right answer is for them to be built while producing a release?)
Yes.
--Toby
>