Dimitrie O. Paun
dimi at intelliware.ca
Sat Apr 19 20:07:58 CDT 2003
On 19 Apr 2003, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Either way is OK with me, but the big jump would certainly have the
> advantage to make it clear where we are going. Right now I'm not sure
> I understand how this stuff is working on the WineHQ side, and what
> would break if we change things in the source tree.
I tried to break the jump into small, incremental changes. This one
is completly transparent -- it should not affect anything on WineHQ.
My next steps:
-- get rid of the .shtml stuff, we should just serve the regular
.html documents we produce. This should get rid of winehq.dsl
-- enhance the Makefile to the point where it can do most/all(?)
that make_winehq does. This should be a no-op from WineHQ POV
-- Jer checks it out, and when happy we can simply delete
the make_winehq script
The big change is that before you could run make_winehq without
having to configure the wine tree. If we move stuff to the Makefile,
you will not be able to do so. BTW, is there a way to check out
only documentation and configure? Will such a thing work:
cvs co wine/documentation
cvs up configure
Hmm, I'll have to check it out. But we need to do that anyway IMO
because we should export the man pages as HTML docu on the site as
well, and some of them are actually man.in pages that need to go
through the Makefiles to become .man pages.
It makes it so much easier for me to go to next step after you have
applied the patch, thus my slow pace.
More information about the wine-devel