Doxygen process is not portable
Opened this issue · 6 comments
GoogleCodeExporter commented
What steps will reproduce the problem?
1. doxygen Doxygen
What is the expected output? What do you see instead?
sh: C:/Program Files/HTML Help Workshop/hhc.exe: not found
What version of the product are you using? On what operating system?
svn r623 / Debian GNU/Linux
Please provide any additional information below.
− Doxygen should be renamed to Doxyfile (since it is the standard naming
scheme). Nothing is wrong but the fact that the configuration file is named
Doxygen is just… disapointing. More over, the file permissions on GNU/Linux
are not set correctly on that file (to be verified). exec bits must be set to 0.
− Since Fog aims to be portable, the doxygen process should be. chm is not
portable and should be excluded de facto from the doc generation process.
− I suggest to include the doxygen processing to the build process.
Best regards,
Renaud
Original issue reported on code.google.com by renaud.a...@gmail.com on 24 Mar 2011 at 7:21
GoogleCodeExporter commented
Accepted,
although I don't agree with inclusion of doxygen to the build process.
Thank you!
Original comment by kobalicek.petr on 24 Mar 2011 at 8:27
- Changed state: Accepted
GoogleCodeExporter commented
Even if it's optional?
Original comment by renaud.a...@gmail.com on 24 Mar 2011 at 8:29
GoogleCodeExporter commented
You know how to make it optional?
Original comment by kobalicek.petr on 24 Mar 2011 at 8:38
GoogleCodeExporter commented
find_package(Doxygen)
configure_file(Doxyfile Doxyfile COPYONLY)
add_custom_target(doxygen ${DOXYGEN_EXECUTABLE}
${CMAKE_CURRENT_BINARY_DIR}/Doxyfile)
make does not build the documentation. make doxygen does.
[Partly OT] Check this interesting one:
http://snikt.net/index.php/2010/04/01/howto-use-cmake-with-cc-projects.
Original comment by renaud.a...@gmail.com on 24 Mar 2011 at 9:43
GoogleCodeExporter commented
I forgot to mention that I've tested that with cmake 2.8.
Original comment by renaud.a...@gmail.com on 24 Mar 2011 at 9:47
GoogleCodeExporter commented
This seems to be okay:)
Original comment by kobalicek.petr on 25 Mar 2011 at 1:07