Vincent Béron wrote:
This one I'm not sure which one is better. So I include both patches, but only one should be applied.
Functionnally, both produce the exact same html files, although the fix1 creates (by the system's db2html) a directory with images (which are unused).
So I'd tend to go with fix2.
Please comment, and I'll post the good one to wine-patches.
Vincent
Index: wine/documentation/Makefile.in
RCS file: /home/wine/wine/documentation/Makefile.in,v retrieving revision 1.24 diff -u -r1.24 Makefile.in --- Makefile.in 17 Sep 2002 18:44:46 -0000 1.24 +++ Makefile.in 9 Nov 2002 00:18:33 -0000 @@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ .PHONY: everything doc html pdf ps
$(BOOKNAME)/index.html: $(BOOK_SRCS)
- $(DB2HTML) $(BOOKNAME).sgml
- $(DB2HTML) -d ./default.dsl $(BOOKNAME).sgml
$(BOOKNAME).pdf: $(BOOK_SRCS) db2pdf -d ./print.dsl $(BOOKNAME).sgml > /dev/null
Index: wine/documentation/Makefile.in
RCS file: /home/wine/wine/documentation/Makefile.in,v retrieving revision 1.24 diff -u -r1.24 Makefile.in --- Makefile.in 17 Sep 2002 18:44:46 -0000 1.24 +++ Makefile.in 9 Nov 2002 00:19:34 -0000 @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ VPATH = @srcdir@ MODULE = none BOOKNAME = wine-doc -DB2HTML = db2html +DB2HTML = ./db2html-winehq
EXTRASUBDIRS = samples status
I would go with patch 2 myself. Cleaner is better.