gpsd-dev
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: ✘asciidoc vs asciidoctor, issue #118


From: Sanjeev Gupta
Subject: Re: ✘asciidoc vs asciidoctor, issue #118
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2021 09:52:18 +0800

Gary, thank you. That is exactly my use case here; asking to build pages and not knowing they failed. 

I think this should make everyone happy, at least for cases where everyone is me :-)


On Tue, 2 Feb 2021, 3:52 am Gary E. Miller, <gem@rellim.com> wrote:
Yo Greg!

On Mon, 01 Feb 2021 11:53:48 -0500
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.

And that is exactly the problem he wishes to solve.  Currently it
is possible to build with managges=yes and not get any manpages.

I'll implement today:

manpages=no|false
  Do not build man pages.

manpages=auto (default)
    build man pages if possible.  equivalent to current default, so no one
    complain about changing the defailt.

manpages=yes
     was build manpages if possible.
     will be fail if man pages can not be built.

That make packagers job easier.  They ask for man pages and no man pages
becomes a failure.


RGDS
GARY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary E. Miller Rellim 109 NW Wilmington Ave., Suite E, Bend, OR 97703
        gem@rellim.com  Tel:+1 541 382 8588

            Veritas liberabit vos. -- Quid est veritas?
    "If you can't measure it, you can't improve it." - Lord Kelvin

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]