The Coq mailing list

[Yannick Forster <yannick AT yforster.de>]

Hi,

probably all it would take to have documentation for all opam packages 
would be to change the Makefile generated by coq_makefile, no?

There is already the html make target running coqdoc. If we would have 
an install-html target which depends on html and moves the html files to 
a reasonable place the only thing developers would have to do to have 
their opam package ship with documentation is to call make install-html 
in their opam file.

Even more radical, it's also not absurd to have the install target 
install documentation automatically. I'm not sure it's a good idea, but 
that way most developers wouldn't even have to do something and by the 
next Coq version every opam package comes with documentation.

Best,
Yannick

On 26/03/2020 10:11, Christian Doczkal wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm afraid there is no established standard way, at least none that I
> know of. (I'd be happy to be corrected on this.)
>
> Many packages have GitHub repositories and HTML documentation on the
> respective project websites. So getting the websites with wget or
> checking out the repository and running the make html (or any custom
> documentation targets) may be options.
>
> It seems that not many people are using "local" documentation these
> days, so the UNIX tradition of installing docs to
> /usr/share/doc/<package> is dying.
>
> Best,
> Christian
>
>
>
>
> On 3/24/20 9:33 PM, Izzy wrote:
> > Dear Coq-club,
> >
> > Is there a recommended or standard way of getting local web-browser
> > friendly documentation for libraries installed using opam?
> >
> > My current method of :
> >
> >      $find "$(pwd)" | grep -i '\.v$' >> /tmp/libraryfiles
> >
> >      $coqdoc --files-from /tmp/libraryfiles.txt --html --toc
> >
> > works but I'm hoping there is something more like odig or racodocs for
> > ease browsing, searching, and automated generation.
> >
> > Izzy