Howto build the documentation. about opm-core HOT 13 CLOSED

make doc

You need TeXLive and Ghostscript installed in addition to Doxygen if I recall correctly. (I see that an error has snuck into the Doxyfile, though)

from opm-core.

On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 04:51:53PM -0700, Roland Kaufmann wrote:

make doc

Works nicely for opm-core, but in dune-cornerpoint it tells me that
there is nothing to do.
Is it possible that I switched this off accidentally using some
dunecontrol magic?

from opm-core.

in dune-cornerpoint it tells me that there is nothing to do. Is it possible that I switched this off accidentally

There shouldn't be any such switch... What happens if you run

pushd doc/doxygen; doxygen $(readlink -f Doxyfile); popd

There should now be a file doc/doxygen/html/classDune_1_1CpGrid.html at least.

from opm-core.

On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 02:21:45AM -0700, Roland Kaufmann wrote:

There shouldn't be any such switch... What happens if you run

pushd doc/doxygen; doxygen $(readlink -f Doxyfile); popd

It builds the documentation, of course ;)

from opm-core.

But what does

make doc VERBOSE=1

print out that it does?

from opm-core.

pushd

Blech ;-)

What happened to using portable techniques where possible?

(cd doc/doxygen; doxygen $(readlink -f Doxyfile))

from opm-core.

Hey, don't bash my shell! ;-)

from opm-core.

On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 02:30:00AM -0700, Roland Kaufmann wrote:

But what does

make doc VERBOSE=1

print out that it does?

Shame on me. This is just embarassing:

It turns out that I am not able to use build systems correctly. I
called make doc in the source tree instead of the build tree.
If I use it as I am supposed to be, it works like exspected.

I am awfully sorry for the noise (again).

from opm-core.

I called make doc in the source tree

But is there a Makefile in the source tree? (if there is one, isn't it generated by the same configuration script?)

from opm-core.

But is there a Makefile in the source tree? (if there is one, isn't it generated by the same configuration script?)

No. And aparrently one can call make doc wherever one wants. You just
get "No rule to make target ..."

from opm-core.

aparrently one can call make doc wherever one wants

As an aside, the BSD edition of make(1) has--or at least used to have--a built-in target love...

Saying

make love

would illicit

not war?

or something of the kind.

from opm-core.

That's right! If you just issue make you get:

make: *** No targets specified and no makefile found.  Stop.

which (half at least) indicates that the makefile is missing. But make doc only gives

make: *** No rule to make target `doc'.  Stop.

Now the hint about the missing makefile is gone. (And in conjuction with the one above you may infer that it was the target that was missing, not the file). As Bård alludes to, there is probably some "implicit" targets which makes it valid to not have a file. Quite a gotcha!

from opm-core.

I am closing this.

Just one comment: It is not about implicite targets. One can use any target, e.g. bla, foo, or bar.

from opm-core.