Fix for bug #688 (documentation building)

Sylvain Petreolle spetreolle at
Fri Nov 8 23:14:46 CST 2002

 --- Vincent Béron <vberon at> a écrit : > Le ven
08/11/2002 à 23:13, Sylvain Petreolle a écrit :
> > We should test if the db2xxxx or docbook2xxxx binaries are
> available so
> > we could support both...
> configure is where to do that. You do it? :) and his neighboors are a mystery for me at the moment :)

> The unhiding of error messages is probably a good thing (especially
> if
> people report some problems).
> But if we first determine which one is installed (eg db2html or
> docbook2html), then what is the best way to handle the absence of any
> of
> those (aka "I can't build the doc")?
Fully agreed.
> Last thing: make_winehq is not meant to build the documentation on a
> general basis. make doc is for that, and the html files are now
> correctly named with any one of the 2 patches I sent earlier (I think
> the second one will get sent to wine-patches). There are some
> differences between make_winehq and make doc: the first one buids
> each guide separatly, then a big one comprising the four (5
> directories in total), and finally the same thing with another dsl,
> while make doc only builds the big one. So we may want to add a make
> target to build the different guides separately. But make_winehq is
> not the right thing to call if you don't place the result on a


I must add one thing : make clean doesn't work for now. It removes
*.tgz and others but the directories containing the old doc aren't

Neither does 'make doc'. wine-doc is moved to wine-doc.junk by jade and
that's all.

Or does it works with your patch ? Didn't have time to test it.

Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse gratuite et en français !
Yahoo! Mail :

More information about the wine-devel mailing list