Re: [PATCH] Fixing some docs build warnings

[Graham Percival]

On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 04:53:00PM +0200, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
> 2) A normal "make" tries to load the translations for the gettext domain 
> "lilypond-doc" from the directory 
> /home/reinhold/lilypond/lilypond/Documentation/po/out-www
> As they are not created during a normal build, we get one warning for each 
> file processed:
> 
> langdefs.py: warning: lilypond-doc gettext domain not found.
> 
> Can't we add the lilypond-doc gettext creation to the begin of a normal 
> build, 
> too?

Would they be built in out/ or out-www/ ?  I have no objection to
either.  Oh, and you might need to build these after building
stuff in python/ or scripts/ , instead of doing them at the very
beginning.

> 3) A normal build also tries to create several info files with images in 
> pictures, for which we do not have any *.txt files, resulting in warnings:
> 
> ./contributor/programming-work.itexi:67: Warnung: @image-Datei 
> „lilypond/pictures/architecture-diagram.txt“ (für Text) nicht lesbar: Datei 
> oder Verzeichnis nicht gefunden.
> ./contributor/programming-work.itexi:67: Warnung: @image-Datei 
> „lilypond/pictures/architecture-diagram.txt“ (für Text) nicht lesbar: Datei 
> oder Verzeichnis nicht gefunden.
> 
> First, why do we hardcode the lilypond/ directory? AFAICS, we don't create or 
> use that directory at all. All snippets link their images to something a0/... 
> and not to lilypond/a0/... Only explicit image links have lilypond/ hardcoded 
> in the macro.

I recall that there was some weirdness with makeinfo.
Documentation/lilypond is a symlink to ./out-www  , but when I
tried to remove it 3-5 years ago, some info people complained.
IIRC it was John Mandereau, who was working on displaying the
images in info in emacs?


> And second, should we create a .txt file for each static .png image we use, 
> so 
> makinfo is happy?

If that's required to make makeinfo, then I guess so.

> 4) The snippets texinfo has the problem that each snippets adds a @node with 
> its name. If a snippet is included twice, we have duplicated nodes. Also, in 
> each snippet category, we do not create any menu, but create a node for each 
> snippet, so we have lots of notes that are not inside any menu. Any idea how 
> to proceed with those?

The only thing that comes to mind is asking on bug-texinfo, sorry.

Cheers,
- Graham