[pacman-dev] asciidoc

[Xavier]

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HTML manpages, but they seem a bit outdated :
http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch/2007-September/015447.html
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 .