Versioning the CHM Files

Ian Clatworthy ian.clatworthy at
Tue Oct 20 08:02:38 BST 2009

John Arbash Meinel wrote:
> So it looks like you've gone the route of using a fixed URL for the
> Compiled Help files that we are bundling with the Windows Installer.

Not as I understand it. The URLs should include the release in their
path, though not in their basename. For example:


> The main problem with that, is that when building the installer, we
> basically have to tell it to re-download those files from scratch every
> time, because we don't have a way to tell locally if the files are up to
> date. And, in fact, it lead to the fact that the 2.0.0-1 installer has
> out-of-date help text. (Thanks to DeeJay for finding this.)

buildout seems to have a caching layer based on basename? Maybe that's
the issue? If required, I can tweak the basenames but that will
complicate the installer a little (unless we rename them after fetching

> IMO, I'd actually rather rebuild the chm files from source as part of
> the build process, as that can usually be taught whether things need to
> be rebuilt or whether we can just re-use the source. This will become
> even more important once we start doing a 2.0.1 release and a 2.1.0b1
> release, because at that point, we'll need 2 different CHM files at a
> minimum.
> Is there a specific reason they cannot be easily rebuilt on demand?

No reason. You'll need to install Sphinx (requires easy-install to my
knowledge) and Help Workshop. I'm yet to work out how to compile hhp
files (generated by Sphinx) to chm on the command line so I'm currently
using the GUI for that step (unfortunately). Once we work it out, we
ought to tweak our Makefile (the chm-sphinx rule) accordingly.

Ian C.

More information about the bazaar mailing list