Martin Nowak <code dawg.eu> writes:

It's a huge maintenance effort for us to produce the chm files.
We no longer generate documentation on Windows, but just for the 
chm generation we have dedicated tools [¹] to create an index 
(from a json generated via ddoc) and copy the html files.
So I'm wondering if in 2016 someone really needs an offline copy 
of a website shipped with a binary release?

https://github.com/dlang/dlang.org/pull/1374

[¹]:
https://github.com/dlang/dlang.org/blob/7cc6e938154f90aa49fa6451a85b13e35ab2de99/chmgen.d

rikki cattermole <rikki cattermole.co.nz> writes:

On 15/06/2016 10:58 PM, Martin Nowak wrote:
 It's a huge maintenance effort for us to produce the chm files.
 We no longer generate documentation on Windows, but just for the chm
 generation we have dedicated tools [¹] to create an index (from a json
 generated via ddoc) and copy the html files.
 So I'm wondering if in 2016 someone really needs an offline copy of a
 website shipped with a binary release?

 https://github.com/dlang/dlang.org/pull/1374

 [¹]:
 https://github.com/dlang/dlang.org/blob/7cc6e938154f90aa49fa6451a85b13e35ab2de99/chmgen.d

As long as pdf is still being generated I see no reason to not drop it. 
Cost vs benefit.

captaindet <2krnk gmx.net> writes:

 As long as pdf is still being generated I see no reason to not drop it.
 Cost vs benefit.

not sure what pdf you are referring to.
https://dlang.org/dlangspec.pdf ? - this is only the language spec. the 
chm contains the whole website incl phobos documentation, compiler 
options, articles and style guide.

or is there another pdf hiding somewhere?

/det

rikki cattermole <rikki cattermole.co.nz> writes:

On 16/06/2016 12:04 AM, captaindet wrote:
 As long as pdf is still being generated I see no reason to not drop it.
 Cost vs benefit.

 not sure what pdf you are referring to.
 https://dlang.org/dlangspec.pdf ? - this is only the language spec. the
 chm contains the whole website incl phobos documentation, compiler
 options, articles and style guide.

 or is there another pdf hiding somewhere?

 /det

No no, spec only.
Honestly? I read the source for Phobos even with a internet connection 
quite often. So having it not included isn't an issue there, but spec is.

captaindet <2krnk gmx.net> writes:

On 2016-06-16 00:29, rikki cattermole wrote:
 Honestly? I read the source for Phobos even with a internet connection
 quite often. So having it not included isn't an issue there, but spec is.

real programmers do ...

well, i do sometimes too. but i rather regard myself as an average user, 
while i see you as an advanced developer. ppl like me like easy 
digestible documentation.

i don't want to start a fight here. if it has to go it has to go. just 
making a point that it is useful for some.

maybe a 2nd pdf could be made instead containing the phobos docs?

rikki cattermole <rikki cattermole.co.nz> writes:

On 16/06/2016 12:57 AM, captaindet wrote:
 On 2016-06-16 00:29, rikki cattermole wrote:
 Honestly? I read the source for Phobos even with a internet connection
 quite often. So having it not included isn't an issue there, but spec is.

 real programmers do ...

 well, i do sometimes too. but i rather regard myself as an average user,
 while i see you as an advanced developer. ppl like me like easy
 digestible documentation.

I like my information easily digestible too.

 i don't want to start a fight here. if it has to go it has to go. just
 making a point that it is useful for some.

 maybe a 2nd pdf could be made instead containing the phobos docs?

The spec is quite a problem in reading it isn't as enjoyable as say 
Phobos sources. That is why I mention it explicitly. But I have nothing 
against pdf form of Phobos docs.

captaindet <2krnk gmx.net> writes:

 It's a huge maintenance effort for us to produce the chm files.
...
 So I'm wondering if in 2016 someone really needs an offline copy of a
 website shipped with a binary release?

i am very glad the chm file exists whenever i am not online, e.g. on a 
plane or train (free wifi is not a given everywhere). finding something 
in the local html is quite awkward w/o google...

if it really takes up too much time i will understand if it has to go 
too, especially if i a am the minority. just saying: i do use it 
occasionally, and whenever i do it is a big help.

/det

FrankLike <1150015857 qq.com> writes:

On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 11:54:31 UTC, captaindet wrote:
 It's a huge maintenance effort for us to produce the chm files.
...
 So I'm wondering if in 2016 someone really needs an offline 
 copy of a
 website shipped with a binary release?

 i am very glad the chm file exists whenever i am not online, 
 e.g. on a plane or train (free wifi is not a given everywhere). 
 finding something in the local html is quite awkward w/o 
 google...

 if it really takes up too much time i will understand if it has 
 to go too, especially if i a am the minority. just saying: i do 
 use it occasionally, and whenever i do it is a big help.

 /det

+1

jmh530 <john.michael.hall gmail.com> writes:

On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 10:58:04 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
 It's a huge maintenance effort for us to produce the chm files.

I didn't know this was a thing. It's cool, but if it is a big 
inconvenience, then I don't think it needs to be included. I 
suggest just providing a way for people to make it themselves or 
download it (and clearly document how to do it).

finalpatch <fengli gmail.com> writes:

On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 10:58:04 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
 It's a huge maintenance effort for us to produce the chm files.
 We no longer generate documentation on Windows, but just for 
 the chm generation we have dedicated tools [¹] to create an 
 index (from a json generated via ddoc) and copy the html files.
 So I'm wondering if in 2016 someone really needs an offline 
 copy of a website shipped with a binary release?

 https://github.com/dlang/dlang.org/pull/1374

 [¹]:
 https://github.com/dlang/dlang.org/blob/7cc6e938154f90aa49fa6451a85b13e35ab2de99/chmgen.d

Would be cool if you guys take over this and produce an official 
version:

https://github.com/Kapeli/Dash-User-Contributions/tree/master/docsets/D

Dash (and its free clone Zeal) is massively better than CHM for 
offline use.

zabruk70 <sorry noem.ail> writes:

On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 10:58:04 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
 So I'm wondering if in 2016 someone really needs an offline 
 copy of a website shipped with a binary release?

i use chm doc - it easy integrates with ide

Jack Stouffer <jack jackstouffer.com> writes:

On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 10:58:04 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
 So I'm wondering if in 2016 someone really needs an offline 
 copy of a website shipped with a binary release?

For offline browsing, Windows and Linux users can use Zeal [1] 
which is FOSS, and macOS users can use Dash[2], which is free as 
in beer. Both of which can use this D docset [3].

So no, there's no reason to maintain the chm docs.

[1] https://zealdocs.org/
[2] https://kapeli.com/dash
[3] 
https://github.com/Kapeli/Dash-User-Contributions/tree/master/docsets/D#readme

Martin Nowak <code dawg.eu> writes:

On Thursday, 16 June 2016 at 02:32:05 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:
 On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 10:58:04 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
 So I'm wondering if in 2016 someone really needs an offline 
 copy of a website shipped with a binary release?

 For offline browsing, Windows and Linux users can use Zeal [1] 
 which is FOSS, and macOS users can use Dash[2], which is free 
 as in beer. Both of which can use this D docset [3].

 So no, there's no reason to maintain the chm docs.

 [1] https://zealdocs.org/
 [2] https://kapeli.com/dash
 [3] 
 https://github.com/Kapeli/Dash-User-Contributions/tree/master/docsets/D#readme

Interesting, is this generated from the html pages?

Jack Stouffer <jack jackstouffer.com> writes:

On Thursday, 16 June 2016 at 11:04:48 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
 On Thursday, 16 June 2016 at 02:32:05 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:
 For offline browsing, Windows and Linux users can use Zeal [1] 
 which is FOSS, and macOS users can use Dash[2], which is free 
 as in beer. Both of which can use this D docset [3].

 So no, there's no reason to maintain the chm docs.

 [1] https://zealdocs.org/
 [2] https://kapeli.com/dash
 [3] 
 https://github.com/Kapeli/Dash-User-Contributions/tree/master/docsets/D#readme

 Interesting, is this generated from the html pages?

Yeah

Dejan Lekic <dejan.lekic gmail.com> writes:

On Thursday, 16 June 2016 at 02:32:05 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:
 On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 10:58:04 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
 So I'm wondering if in 2016 someone really needs an offline 
 copy of a website shipped with a binary release?

 For offline browsing, Windows and Linux users can use Zeal [1] 
 which is FOSS, and macOS users can use Dash[2], which is free 
 as in beer. Both of which can use this D docset [3].

 So no, there's no reason to maintain the chm docs.

 [1] https://zealdocs.org/
 [2] https://kapeli.com/dash
 [3] 
 https://github.com/Kapeli/Dash-User-Contributions/tree/master/docsets/D#readme

Thanks for the Zeal, I did not know about it.
Both Gnome and KDE have their "help" tools that more/less do the 
same.

notna <notna.remove.this ist-einmalig.de> writes:

On Thursday, 16 June 2016 at 02:32:05 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:
 On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 10:58:04 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
 So I'm wondering if in 2016 someone really needs an offline 
 copy of a website shipped with a binary release?

 For offline browsing, Windows and Linux users can use Zeal [1] 
 which is FOSS, and macOS users can use Dash[2], which is free 
 as in beer. Both of which can use this D docset [3].

 So no, there's no reason to maintain the chm docs.

 [1] https://zealdocs.org/
 [2] https://kapeli.com/dash
 [3] 
 https://github.com/Kapeli/Dash-User-Contributions/tree/master/docsets/D#readme

thanks... great community... everyday something new to learn... 
even in 2+ years old posts ;)

Seb <seb wilzba.ch> writes:

On Saturday, 24 February 2018 at 11:23:17 UTC, notna wrote:
 On Thursday, 16 June 2016 at 02:32:05 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:
 On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 10:58:04 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
 So I'm wondering if in 2016 someone really needs an offline 
 copy of a website shipped with a binary release?

 For offline browsing, Windows and Linux users can use Zeal [1] 
 which is FOSS, and macOS users can use Dash[2], which is free 
 as in beer. Both of which can use this D docset [3].

 So no, there's no reason to maintain the chm docs.

 [1] https://zealdocs.org/
 [2] https://kapeli.com/dash
 [3] 
 https://github.com/Kapeli/Dash-User-Contributions/tree/master/docsets/D#readme

 thanks... great community... everyday something new to learn... 
 even in 2+ years old posts ;)

FYI: devdocs.io (works in every browser + offers optional offline 
access via HTML5 localStorage) supports D too:

http://devdocs.io/d/

Dejan Lekic <dejan.lekic gmail.com> writes:

On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 10:58:04 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
 It's a huge maintenance effort for us to produce the chm files.
 We no longer generate documentation on Windows, but just for 
 the chm generation we have dedicated tools [¹] to create an 
 index (from a json generated via ddoc) and copy the html files.
 So I'm wondering if in 2016 someone really needs an offline 
 copy of a website shipped with a binary release?

 https://github.com/dlang/dlang.org/pull/1374

 [¹]:
 https://github.com/dlang/dlang.org/blob/7cc6e938154f90aa49fa6451a85b13e35ab2de99/chmgen.d

I still use CHM document as it is absolutely the best solution 
compared to anything else. I think it is a mistake to compare CHM 
with PDF... They are made for different things...

If people want to get rid of PDF, then I propose we start 
providing ePub instead of CHM. That could be the only sane 
alternative to the CHM we have.

Dejan Lekic <dejan.lekic gmail.com> writes:

 I still use CHM document as it is absolutely the best solution 
 compared to anything else. I think it is a mistake to compare 
 CHM with PDF... They are made for different things...

I forgot to mention - I use CHM on Linux. It is not my fault that 
opensource community could not come up with a better or/and 
standardised solution... The only standard solution for this that 
Linux has are man pages - clearly not suitable this purpose! 
Other, better solutions are there, but are not adopted by all - 
Gnome has one format, KDE another, etc... CHAOS. Therefore, I 
decided to use CHM.

rikki cattermole <rikki cattermole.co.nz> writes:

On 17/06/2016 1:22 AM, Dejan Lekic wrote:
 I still use CHM document as it is absolutely the best solution
 compared to anything else. I think it is a mistake to compare CHM with
 PDF... They are made for different things...

 I forgot to mention - I use CHM on Linux. It is not my fault that
 opensource community could not come up with a better or/and standardised
 solution... The only standard solution for this that Linux has are man
 pages - clearly not suitable this purpose! Other, better solutions are
 there, but are not adopted by all - Gnome has one format, KDE another,
 etc... CHAOS. Therefore, I decided to use CHM.

It's doable to have epub generation[0].
PDF can do a heck a lot more then what most people even know[1].

[0] 
http://master.dl.sourceforge.net/project/d-apt/files/doc/2.071.0/dlangspec-2.071.0.epub
[1] 
http://help.adobe.com/en_US/acrobat/acrobat_dc_sdk/2015/HTMLHelp/#t=Acro12_MasterBook%2FJS_API_AcroJSPreface%2FJS_API_AcroJSPreface.htm

Manu <turkeyman gmail.com> writes:

On 16 June 2016 at 06:22, Dejan Lekic via Digitalmars-d <
digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:

 I still use CHM document as it is absolutely the best solution compared to
 anything else. I think it is a mistake to compare CHM with PDF... They are
 made for different things...

 I forgot to mention - I use CHM on Linux. It is not my fault that
 opensource community could not come up with a better or/and standardised
 solution... The only standard solution for this that Linux has are man
 pages - clearly not suitable this purpose! Other, better solutions are
 there, but are not adopted by all - Gnome has one format, KDE another,
 etc... CHAOS. Therefore, I decided to use CHM.

I approve of this message!
At my old work, we released CHM docs specifically for linux users too. They
preferred the CHM index and searchability compared to PDF or something like
that.

Adam D. Ruppe <destructionator gmail.com> writes:

On Thursday, 16 June 2016 at 13:18:23 UTC, Dejan Lekic wrote:
 I still use CHM document as it is absolutely the best solution 
 compared to anything else.

What's the main difference between it and just pointing your 
browser at the downloaded html files? Search and index?

Dejan Lekic <dejan.lekic gmail.com> writes:

 What's the main difference between it and just pointing your 
 browser at the downloaded html files? Search and index?

Well, seach and index are not the only operations you need.

One of the common operation with every CHM viewer is to bookmark 
something for an example. I've just checked the Zeal application 
and realised it does not have this simple feature (or I could not 
find it).

Also, I want it to open at the same place I was last time I used 
the viewer...

Simply run KChmViewer and open the CHM document from DMD package 
with it, and compare it with any other similar solution...

Martin Nowak <code dawg.eu> writes:

On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 10:58:04 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
 It's a huge maintenance effort for us to produce the chm files.
 We no longer generate documentation on Windows, but just for 
 the chm generation we have dedicated tools [¹] to create an 
 index (from a json generated via ddoc) and copy the html files.
 So I'm wondering if in 2016 someone really needs an offline 
 copy of a website shipped with a binary release?

Let's pull the plug, I think everybody agrees that we have more 
important issues than maintaining d.chm and dman (which hasn't 
been shipped since 2.076 anyhow).
Consider both tools as offered for adoption (as an external 
service or download).

https://github.com/dlang/installer/pull/298

Manu <turkeyman gmail.com> writes:

On 17 February 2018 at 07:04, Martin Nowak via Digitalmars-d <
digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:

 On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 10:58:04 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:

 It's a huge maintenance effort for us to produce the chm files.
 We no longer generate documentation on Windows, but just for the chm
 generation we have dedicated tools [=C2=B9] to create an index (from a j=


son
 generated via ddoc) and copy the html files.
 So I'm wondering if in 2016 someone really needs an offline copy of a
 website shipped with a binary release?

 Let's pull the plug, I think everybody agrees that we have more important
 issues than maintaining d.chm and dman (which hasn't been shipped since
 2.076 anyhow).
 Consider both tools as offered for adoption (as an external service or
 download).

 https://github.com/dlang/installer/pull/298



Wait, what? You asked if people used them, found that they did, then pulled
the plug anyway? O_o
Try running WINE on the build machine... it's trivial to setup.

Seb <seb wilzba.ch> writes:

On Saturday, 17 February 2018 at 21:23:25 UTC, Manu wrote:
 On 17 February 2018 at 07:04, Martin Nowak via Digitalmars-d < 
 digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:

 [...]



 Wait, what? You asked if people used them, found that they did, 
 then pulled
 the plug anyway? O_o
 Try running WINE on the build machine... it's trivial to setup.

It's marked as "[temporarily]".
Also from GH where Vladimir tried to add chmgen to dlang.org's CI.

 [...]

 No hurries, I'll disable the d.chm build for now so I can build 
 the beta and we can decide on readding or removing later.

https://github.com/dlang/dlang.org/pull/2213

Cym13 <cpicard openmailbox.org> writes:

On Saturday, 17 February 2018 at 21:23:25 UTC, Manu wrote:
 Wait, what? You asked if people used them, found that they did, 
 then pulled
 the plug anyway? O_o
 Try running WINE on the build machine... it's trivial to setup.

Note the 2-year gap. I guess this decision is based off low 
interest shown during this gap to actually maintain the tools.

Manu <turkeyman gmail.com> writes:

On 18 February 2018 at 05:26, Cym13 via Digitalmars-d <
digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:

 On Saturday, 17 February 2018 at 21:23:25 UTC, Manu wrote:

 Wait, what? You asked if people used them, found that they did, then
 pulled
 the plug anyway? O_o
 Try running WINE on the build machine... it's trivial to setup.

 Note the 2-year gap. I guess this decision is based off low interest shown
 during this gap to actually maintain the tools.

Heh, I didn't notice anything but the timestamp of the most recent post.

Danni Coy <danni.coy gmail.com> writes:

Is the reason for favouring chm as a format that it fits in with the visual
studio ecosystem better?
Having used both pdf and chm help on Linux I don't see a huge amount of
difference between competent reading applications.

On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 7:23 AM, Manu via Digitalmars-d <
digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:

 On 17 February 2018 at 07:04, Martin Nowak via Digitalmars-d <
 digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:

 On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 10:58:04 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:

 It's a huge maintenance effort for us to produce the chm files.
 We no longer generate documentation on Windows, but just for the chm
 generation we have dedicated tools [=C2=B9] to create an index (from a =



json
 generated via ddoc) and copy the html files.
 So I'm wondering if in 2016 someone really needs an offline copy of a
 website shipped with a binary release?

 Let's pull the plug, I think everybody agrees that we have more importan=


t
 issues than maintaining d.chm and dman (which hasn't been shipped since
 2.076 anyhow).
 Consider both tools as offered for adoption (as an external service or
 download).

 https://github.com/dlang/installer/pull/298



 Wait, what? You asked if people used them, found that they did, then
 pulled the plug anyway? O_o
 Try running WINE on the build machine... it's trivial to setup.

Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:

On 2/17/2018 7:04 AM, Martin Nowak wrote:
 Let's pull the plug, I think everybody agrees that we have more important
issues 
 than maintaining d.chm and dman (which hasn't been shipped since 2.076 anyhow).
 Consider both tools as offered for adoption (as an external service or
download).
 
 https://github.com/dlang/installer/pull/298
 

I find dman very useful, as I'm a command line sorta guy. In fact, I wrote it 
because it's a major convenience for me.

Martin Nowak <code+news.digitalmars dawg.eu> writes:

On 02/18/2018 02:05 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
 On 2/17/2018 7:04 AM, Martin Nowak wrote:
 Let's pull the plug, I think everybody agrees that we have more
 important issues than maintaining d.chm and dman (which hasn't been
 shipped since 2.076 anyhow).
 Consider both tools as offered for adoption (as an external service or
 download).

 https://github.com/dlang/installer/pull/298

 
 I find dman very useful, as I'm a command line sorta guy. In fact, I
 wrote it because it's a major convenience for me.

I know, but I think you are one of the very users though.

On my shell it's simple to add an alias that would invoke
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=popFrontN+site%3Adlang.org%2Flibrary.
Personally I do have a browser shortcut 'd' for my Brower's omnibox, so
I can just type 'd popFrontN' in FireFox to find docs.

The essence here is that while dman might be useful, it's foundation is
very complex and fragile, using ddoc JSON macros :o
(https://github.com/dlang/dlang.org/blob/cb44110267d0b5d2e139909c47fa00924ac1cb24/chm-nav.dd)
and a self-written html/link processor to gather tags.
Sure Vladimir is great at maintaining tools and very responsive, but
still any issue with this tool blocks our releases and wastes my time.

Same as for d.chm, I'd favor if that tool would be build and distributed
separately from our dmd releases, and if the actual users would maintain
it. This could be setup on Travis-CI using ldc to cross-compile for all
target platforms or so.

-Martin

Vladimir Panteleev <thecybershadow.lists gmail.com> writes:

On Sunday, 18 February 2018 at 21:31:48 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
 The essence here is that while dman might be useful, it's 
 foundation is
 very complex and fragile, using ddoc JSON macros :o
 (https://github.com/dlang/dlang.org/blob/cb44110267d0b5d2e139909c47fa00924ac1cb24/chm-nav.dd)

Minor correction - the JSON macros are not needed for dman. They 
are needed for CHM navigation.

The core problem is that the dlang.org navigation (top menu) does 
not exist in any semantic machine-readable format other than DDoc 
macros. Previous chmgen implementations parsed HTML to understand 
the site structure, but that became no longer possible after the 
last dlang.org website overhaul.

There is no particular reason to use JSON here. I chose JSON 
because I noticed that it seemed possible to generate 
(almost-correct) JSON from the navigation DDoc files, so I took 
the opportunity.

I think we could reuse this system to build a sitemap that is 
more than a flat list of links.

Manu <turkeyman gmail.com> writes:

On 17 February 2018 at 16:52, Danni Coy <danni.coy gmail.com> wrote:

 Is the reason for favouring chm as a format that it fits in with the
 visual studio ecosystem better?
 Having used both pdf and chm help on Linux I don't see a huge amount of
 difference between competent reading applications.

CHM has a competent search and index feature.

Danni Coy <danni.coy gmail.com> writes:

On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Manu <turkeyman gmail.com> wrote:

 On 17 February 2018 at 16:52, Danni Coy <danni.coy gmail.com> wrote:

 Is the reason for favouring chm as a format that it fits in with the
 visual studio ecosystem better?
 Having used both pdf and chm help on Linux I don't see a huge amount of
 difference between competent reading applications.

 CHM has a competent search and index feature.

Isn't that more up to application than the documentation format?

Manu <turkeyman gmail.com> writes:

On 17 February 2018 at 18:32, Danni Coy <danni.coy gmail.com> wrote:

 On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Manu <turkeyman gmail.com> wrote:

 On 17 February 2018 at 16:52, Danni Coy <danni.coy gmail.com> wrote:

 Is the reason for favouring chm as a format that it fits in with the
 visual studio ecosystem better?
 Having used both pdf and chm help on Linux I don't see a huge amount of
 difference between competent reading applications.

 CHM has a competent search and index feature.

 Isn't that more up to application than the documentation format?

The index is part of the CHM format.

Manu <turkeyman gmail.com> writes:

On 18 February 2018 at 12:28, Martin Nowak <code dawg.eu> wrote:

 It should be equally trivial to setup an appveyor.yml task for dlang.org
 that builds
 a chm file for any git tag.

That's an even better idea! I expect there is scripting in place to build
the doc, since some machinery must have been working for the past decade or
2?
Is it just a matter of executing that script on a windows machine?
Synchronisation sounds annoying though, how do you aggregate an appveyor
output into the main release bundle? Maybe combining different build
machines is harder?

Manu <turkeyman gmail.com> writes:

On 15 June 2016 at 03:58, Martin Nowak via Digitalmars-d <
digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:

 It's a huge maintenance effort for us to produce the chm files.
 We no longer generate documentation on Windows, but just for the chm
 generation we have dedicated tools [=C2=B9] to create an index (from a js=

on
 generated via ddoc) and copy the html files.
 So I'm wondering if in 2016 someone really needs an offline copy of a
 website shipped with a binary release?

 https://github.com/dlang/dlang.org/pull/1374

 [=C2=B9]:
 https://github.com/dlang/dlang.org/blob/7cc6e938154f90aa49fa
 6451a85b13e35ab2de99/chmgen.d

I like the CHM docs.
I have encountered the same maintenance problem before, where build infra
is linux based, and the CHM docs need a windows machine to build... I
solved this problem by building the CHM via WINE ;)
Maybe this is a possible solution?

Martin Nowak <code+news.digitalmars dawg.eu> writes:

On 02/17/2018 10:19 PM, Manu wrote:
 I like the CHM docs.
 I have encountered the same maintenance problem before, where build infra
 is linux based, and the CHM docs need a windows machine to build... I
 solved this problem by building the CHM via WINE ;)
 Maybe this is a possible solution?

Yes might be an option, but I have little experience with Wine, and
adding more complexity to an already complex tool seems problematic.
We obviously do build releases on Windows (VirtualBox) and also have
Windows CIs, but Vladimir's doc tester is linux-only atm.

I mainly don't want to spent more resources to work on this, hence it's
offered for adoption. You might want to collaborate with Vladimir to
integrate this with dlang.org's appveyor.
It can easily test every build and upload artifacts for git tags.

-Martin

Vladimir Panteleev <thecybershadow.lists gmail.com> writes:

On Sunday, 18 February 2018 at 21:37:01 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
 Yes might be an option, but I have little experience with Wine, 
 and adding more complexity to an already complex tool seems 
 problematic. We obviously do build releases on Windows 
 (VirtualBox) and also have Windows CIs, but Vladimir's doc 
 tester is linux-only atm.

 I mainly don't want to spent more resources to work on this, 
 hence it's
 offered for adoption. You might want to collaborate with 
 Vladimir to
 integrate this with dlang.org's appveyor.
 It can easily test every build and upload artifacts for git 
 tags.

As far as I've seen, so far all failures have been in chmgen or 
some of its inputs or dependencies. I think that once chmgen 
itself is tested by CI, there should no longer be any blocking 
problems caused by building the CHM file itself.

https://github.com/dlang/dlang.org/pull/2213 is green and ready 
to merge, by the way.

Jordi Sayol <g.sayol gmail.com> writes:

El 17/02/18 a les 22:19, Manu via Digitalmars-d ha escrit:
 I like the CHM docs.
 I have encountered the same maintenance problem before, where build infra is
linux based, and the CHM docs need a windows machine to build... I solved this
problem by building the CHM via WINE ;)
 Maybe this is a possible solution?

I build a CHM doc file for every dmd release, available on d-apt
<http://d-apt.sourceforge.net/>, and built on Linux :-)

notna <notna.remove.this ist-einmalig.de> writes:

On Sunday, 18 February 2018 at 21:44:54 UTC, Jordi Sayol wrote:
 El 17/02/18 a les 22:19, Manu via Digitalmars-d ha escrit:
 I like the CHM docs.
 I have encountered the same maintenance problem before, where 
 build infra is linux based, and the CHM docs need a windows 
 machine to build... I solved this problem by building the CHM 
 via WINE ;)
 Maybe this is a possible solution?

 I build a CHM doc file for every dmd release, available on 
 d-apt <http://d-apt.sourceforge.net/>, and built on Linux :-)

Downloaded... shows the index (in the left window) but doesn't 
show any content (in the right window)