[fpc-pascal] Re: fpdoc executable both in bin and utils\fpdoc - but not fpdoc.css

[michael.vancanneyt at wisa.be]

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012, Reinier Olislagers wrote:

> On 14-8-2012 10:43, michael.vancanneyt at wisa.be wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Aug 2012, Reinier Olislagers wrote:
>>> On 14-8-2012 10:31, michael.vancanneyt at wisa.be wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 14 Aug 2012, Reinier Olislagers wrote:
>>>>> On 14-8-2012 9:46, michael.vancanneyt at wisa.be wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 14 Aug 2012, Reinier Olislagers wrote:
>>>>> Fine, I understand that, but what is fpdoc then doing in the bin
>>>>> directory?
>>>>
>>>> The binary ? Where would you put it if not in bin ?
>>> Sure, sure, but my point was the connection between fpdoc.css and
>>> fpdoc.exe...
>>> Not that important, please see below.
>>>
>>>> The fpdoc system uses a fpdoc.css file for style. We provide one which
>>>> can be used, but you are under no obligation to use that file. You can
>>>> perfectly create one from scratch, or adapt the existing one.
>>>> Since we do not know what you want to do, we do not 'automagically' copy
>>>> it to the output.
>>> The following is meant as constructive advice, not criticism:
>>> Very well, how many people do you think use fpdoc *and* customize
>>> fpdoc.css? Even then, copying fpdoc.css to the bin directory would give
>>> a sensible default, no? If people want to customize it, replace it etc
>>> they can then always do so.
>>>
>>> If you want your fpdoc.exe usable from the bin directory, I'd just copy
>>> over fpdoc.css during install.
>>>
>>> Now we've got 2 different behaviours:
>>> - fpdoc in the source directory has fpdoc.css and will generate chm/html
>>> files with it
>>> - fpdoc in the bin directory doesn't have it.
>>> In my view this difference in behaviour is unnecessary and only server
>>> to needlessly further increase the complexity of the fpdoc system...
>>
>> There is no difference in behaviour.
>>
>> If you do not specify the location with --css-file, then fpdoc does not
>> look in the bin directory, only in the current working directory.
> Right.
> But there still is a difference between:
> cd c:\development\fpc\bin\i386-win32
> fpdoc ...etc...
> and
> cd c:\development\fpc\utils\fpdoc
> fpdoc ...etc...

I do not understand what you try to say. Please explain ?
As far as I know, only 1 copy of fpdoc is distributed. 
So where you get the second path from, I do not know.

>> That we should distribute the file somewhere is something I agree on,
>> but I do not think it should be in the bin directory; it's not a binary,
>> after all.
> Neither are
> fp.ans
> fpc.cfg
> yylex.cod
> program.pt
> cvsup.tdf
> ... but they still live in my fpc bin directory...
>
> <innocent expression>Probably supporting files of some sort?</innocent
> expression>

I suspect the programs that use those files are coded to look
in the program directory. They stem from the Dos age, and it 
was common practice in those days.

Meanwhile I think the world has evolved to other practices :-)

> Still, I'm glad you think the file should be distributed somewhere...

Well, we're trying hard not to be totally unreasonably pig-headed.
It takes a lot of effort, but we try nonetheless :-)

Jokes aside:
I leave it up to the Windows setup builders to decide where it should go.
If they decide on the bin dir anyway, then so be it...

Michael.