On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 12:32:59PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
So - going on comments concerning GOP, we have had one support, one
comment to the effect that someone once objected, and no-one
objecting. Please could we consider this as a serious proposal, and
if anyone thinks we need to keep web-big-page.html please say so,
and why.
I object. I think we should be conservative about removing stuff.
Nobody is seriously complaining about the broken images on
web-big-html, so let's just leave it alone for now.
Note that if web-big-html lacks pictures, then presumably other
manuals (like notation-big-html and contributor-big-html) will
also lack pictures.
I have discovered another reason for getting rid of it - it's almost
impossible to test any work done to change the way it's created (BTW
- this is not a bleat about an error I made earlier, it's something
I've realised as I documented make website). The command "make
website" doesn't really make the website.
umm...
That's no worse than fixing any other problem in the doc build.
lilypond.org has lots
more content on it - all the manuals, for example, the images, etc.
"make website" doesn't even create web-big-page.html. "make
website" really only makes the html pages in web.texi.
Yes. I mean, nobody expected "make website" to produce all the
binaries for download, right?
On my system, those things (manuals, pictures,
web-big-page.html) are only created by the much slower make doc.
Yes.
If it helps, think of "the website" as "stuff immediately
available on lilypond.org/*.html", whereas "the web manual" as
"one of the manuals produced by make doc"
I couldn't think of any way to avoid the name clash.