Documentation image source

Joel Sherrill joel at
Thu Oct 8 01:04:41 UTC 2020

On Wed, Oct 7, 2020, 8:01 PM Chris Johns <chrisj at> wrote:

> Hi,
> In an update of my rtems-docs.git repo I noticed some new image source
> formats:
> $ find . -name \*.dot
> ./images/eng/
> ./images/eng/
> ./images/eng/
> ./images/eng/
> Do we have a policy on what image source types can be used? Any additional
> image
> source needs to support FreeBSD and Linux.
> Images can be difficult to get right so I understand there is a need for
> flexibility and tolerance but I think we need to consider how we manage the
> process and quality so we maintained high quality documentation. For
> example on
> my desktop I cannot read the HTML `bld-deps.png` and clicking on it loads a
> small image which is clearer but small. The page is ...
> The PDF view looks OK.
> I can see we have as image source the following extensions:
>  .puml
>  .ditaa
>  .svg
>  .dot
>  .odg
> Some formats are old and imported so we live with those but maybe we need
> tickets to have them move to something that is simpler to maintain.
> I see generated .png and .pdf for some images which I am questioning we
> need.
> The user document images I have contributed are only .png files so I am
> not sure
> why a PDF is needed for some.
> How are the .dot image sources converted to the required output format(s)?
> I
> cannot see any information on what to do, what packages I need to install
> and
> the options I need. For the puml and ditaa source I contributed I added waf
> support, tested on Linux and FreeBSD and update the top level doco.


If you can build Doxygen with graphics, you should have dot. We want dot
for sure.

> Sorry to be a pain about this but I think it is better we sort this out
> before
> we all move on and forget how they are created.
> Chris
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the devel mailing list