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

[Reinier Olislagers]

On 14-8-2012 11:06, michael.vancanneyt at wisa.be wrote:
> 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:
>>>> 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 ?
My point is there *is* a difference in behaviour between
fpdoc in the bin directory and
fpdoc in the utils\fpdoc directory (because fpdoc.css is only present in
the latter)
Yes, this difference may only appear if you first change the current
directory to that directory. But no, this difference is not necessary IMO.
Sorry, I can't explain it any way else.

> As far as I know, only 1 copy of fpdoc is distributed. So where you get
> the second path from, I do not know.
Running
make all
or (very much less likely)
make install
from an SVN copy.

>>> 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
<snip>

> Meanwhile I think the world has evolved to other practices :-)
Tell that to the people who use fpc.cfg ;)

> Well, we're trying hard not to be totally unreasonably pig-headed.
> It takes a lot of effort, but we try nonetheless :-)
Same here - reasonably pig-headed is a totally different story though ;)

> 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...
What about the make files/fpmake etc?

Anyway, while I can continue arguing this point (given pig-headedness
already mentioned), I think I got across what I wanted to say... even
though not everybody agrees ;)

Thanks,
Reinier