[pacman-dev] asciidoc

Xavier shiningxc at gmail.com
Tue Sep 18 12:13:35 EDT 2007

On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 10:46:30AM -0500, Dan McGee wrote:
> On 9/18/07, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 9/18/07, Dan McGee <dpmcgee at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > As a developer, I figure everyone can get asciidoc installed in order
> > > to build the manpages. If not...well if you can come up with a patch
> > > that still satisfies the above requirements, then I'll take it (some
> > > sort of patch that doesn't fail if targets in doc/ can't be built).
> >
> > Ah, asciidoc. It's so cool once it's all built, but I always had
> > problems getting it working. But I think that was on dreamhost and
> > maybe perl related...
> >
> > Thankfully, Dan has this in [community] so we need not be afeared!
> Yeah. Let me know if things aren't working correctly. I could move
> asciidoc to extra but didn't see the need right now. The docbook-xsl
> package was broken for a bit, but seems to be working now.

It's alright, it was very easy to get working, just pacman -S asciidoc
docbook-xsl and done, so good job :)
Also, if these man pages will be shipped in tarballs, and then a simple
"./configure && make" still works, then it's not really an issue.

I still find it not ideal that this isn't possible anymore with the git tree.
So as you said, a patch that doesn't fail if targets in doc/ can't be built
would be a very good idea imo.
But it's not a big deal indeed.

> The big advantage this gives us is much more user-friendly editing of
> the manpages, much better HTML output (with linking between them), and
> the ability to do some macros and such that aren't from the 1970s.

On this subject, an user recently wanted to get informations fron the current
HTML manpages, but they seem a bit outdated :
But if they are going to be both updated and improved for 3.1 , its probably
fine :)

Also archlinux.org/pacman could be updated for 3.0.6 .

More information about the pacman-dev mailing list