[Debichem-devel] Bug#465747: openbabel: Some man pages are missing

[Johannes Ranke]

* Daniel Leidert <daniel.leidert at wgdd.de> [080228 01:40]:
> forwarded 465747 http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1900675&group_id=40728&atid=428740
> thanks
> 
> Am Donnerstag, den 14.02.2008, 15:52 +0100 schrieb Johannes Ranke:
> 
> > Man pages are missing for the following executables
> > 
> > obenergy
> > obminimize
> > obrotamer
> > roundtrip
> 
> We know. lintian tells us often enough.
> 
> > I am attaching a man page for obminimize that I just generated with
> > doxygen from the obminimize.cpp source files from the debian source
> > (2.1.1).
> 
> Sorry, but this one needs to be edited. Section titles are covered by
> the .SH macro, which is not the case in the generated man-page.

I only have a vague idea what the different macros do, so I guess I am
not the right person to create the man pages. Once I created a man page
for a KDE binary using XML - this was rather straightforward.
 
> I already tried (a recent) doxygen, but the generated man-pages look
> ugly and contain broken ROFF. In any case (and this also seems to be
> done by upstream atm) man-pages need to be edited and fixed by hand.
> 
> > I don't know why doxygen does not want to build the obenergy
> > or obrotamer man pages from the respective .cpp files.
> 
> Take a look at doc/Makefile.am. There are simply no rules to create the
> man-pages from the doxygen comments in the source - and if I take a look
> at the result - this currently is the correct decision.

I tried to create them by calling doxygen directly, but to no avail in
the cases of obenergy and obrotamer.
 
> > BTW, the roundtrip executable gives the following usage information:
> > 
> >   nobody at xyz~$ roundtrip
> >   Usage: roundtest <file1> <file2>
> > 
> > which I find sort of confusing. Sorry for mixing the two things into one
> > bug report. I noticed that in the sourceforge svn the man pages are
> > there, except the one for roundtrip. Maybe time for an upload of an
> > svn version?
> 
> I've added a hint to your question to the report at sf.net.

Thanks.

Regards,

Johannes