Feature #1676
txt2tags: include in source distribution?
Description
Should we include txt2tags in the source distribution, so that developers can write (& check) documentation?
If so, how? Are there licencing problems? Which version of txt2tags?
Related issues
History
#1
Updated by John Abbott about 2 years ago
Updated by Just spoken to Anna about this.
The main advantage is that this would allow "developers" to rebuild the documentation
without having to install txt2tags themselves (presumably python must be installed).
A notable disadvantage is that if we include a buggy version of txt2tags then we will
be proliferating the bug (think about the log4j fiasco).
JAA does not think that there should be licensing problems.
How large would txt2tags be? Exactly which files are needed? Where should we put it/them in the tree structure?
This is not really urgent: the current workaround is to install txt2tags (latest version, right?).
Maybe it can be added in a "point release" e.g. 0.99801
#2
Updated by John Abbott about 2 years ago
- Status changed from New to In Progress
- % Done changed from 0 to 10
I have now modified the Makefile so that it prints out a helpful message if txt2tags is not found (saying where to obtain it).
Seems a tolerable solution for the moment.
#3
Updated by John Abbott about 2 years ago
- Related to Bug #1662: txt2tags: problem with filenames containing "_" or "-" added
#4
Updated by John Abbott about 2 years ago
- % Done changed from 10 to 40
I have modified release-source.sh so that it does not copy txt2tags.
#5
Updated by John Abbott over 1 year ago
- % Done changed from 40 to 50
6 months later I still think it is best not to distribute txt2tags within our source tree.
I suggest closing this issue.
#6
Updated by John Abbott over 1 year ago
- Status changed from In Progress to Rejected
- Assignee set to John Abbott
- % Done changed from 50 to 100
- Estimated time set to 1.50 h
We should probably distribute source code with precompiled doc so no one actually needs txt2tags.