Re: [PATCH 1/2] doc: add an option to have Asciidoctor build man pages directly

brian m. carlson wrote:

On 2021-05-12 at 02:48:59, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:

quoted

Maybe when distros upgraded shipped Asciidoctor version to 2.0, we can
bump the version requirement.

My general policy, which need not be Git's policy (but I think is
reasonable), is that I will support the previous version of Debian and
Ubuntu LTS for a year after the new one comes out.  Under that policy,
we'd wait until a year after Debian 11 (bullseye) is released.

Under that policy the supported version would be Debian 10 (buster),
which ships with Ruby 2.5. It's more than capable of running
asciidoctor.

The CI of asciidoctor tests versionof Ruby as old as 2.3, so Debian 10
is safe.

In fact, I would bet you that asciidoctor works fine in Ruby 2.1 shipped
with Debian 8 (jessie) released in 2015. Maybe users of Debian 7 would
have trouble... *maybe*... It's hard to tell because Debian doesn't
even provide package information about that release.

quoted

quoted

diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
index 93664d6714..cb75dec314 100644
--- a/Makefile
+++ b/Makefile

@@ -285,6 +285,9 @@ all::
  # Define USE_ASCIIDOCTOR to use Asciidoctor instead of AsciiDoc to build the
  # documentation.
  #
+# Define USE_ASCIIDOCTOR_MANPAGE to use Asciidoctor's manual page backend
+# instead of building manual pages from DocBook.
+#

The wording should be "...instead of building manual pages from DocBook with
xmlto".

I can make that change.  We're not using DocBook either way, with xmlto
or other tooling (e.g., a plain xsltproc), so what we have here is
accurate.

Hmm...

cat Documentation/manpage.xsl

  <xsl:import href="http://docbook.sourceforge.net/release/xsl-ns/current/manpages/docbook.xsl" />

That's a deliverable of the DocBook project, is it not?

-- 
Felipe Contreras