Re: ✘asciidoc vs asciidoctor, issue #118

[Greg Troxel]

"Gary E. Miller" <gem@rellim.com> writes:

> Yo James!
>
> On Mon, 1 Feb 2021 10:11:30 -0800
> James Browning <jamesb.fe80@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 1, 2021, 8:54 AM Greg Troxel <gdt@lexort.com> wrote:
>> 
>> >
>> > "Gary E. Miller" <gem@rellim.com> writes:
>> >  
>> > > Yo Sanjeev!
>> > >
>> > > On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 11:15:31 +0800
>> > > Sanjeev Gupta <ghane0@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >  
>> > >>    1. Default should be no man building  
>> > >
>> > > People complain when I change the defaults.  So it has to be for
>> > > a good reason.  
>> >
>> > Sanjeev's proposed default makes no sense to me.  Man pages are
>> > part of a package and a build without man pages is deficient.
>> >  
>> 
>> Do you want to take over pseudo-developer outreach. Most people will
>> just install the distro package(s). Most distros and some remaining
>> users will build from a zip/tar file which has built man pages.
>> Everyone else should know how much rope not to take.
>
> Consider that is a packager that raised the issue.

I should say that I'm unclear on whether all the asciidoctoring is done
when doing "scons dist", and if it entirely reliably won't try to run
when doing build/install.  The real requirement is that when someone
takes a distributed tarball and does the build/install steps that they
get man pages in the destdir/prefix they install to.  Over the years I
have seen schemes like this not quite work right and be painful.

Overall, unless a tool is painful (because it's in a non-portable
language like Haskell or Java, which this isn't, or because it uses QT,
which requires many hours of CPU time to build), I lean to just
requiring the tool and keeping the world simpler.

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature