Thread: [PATCH] fix tool list for FreeBSD
The list of tools required to build the documentation on FreeBSD is
outdated. The following patch fixes it:
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/docguide.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/docguide.sgml
index 3cc1d60..9626592 100644
--- a/doc/src/sgml/docguide.sgml
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/docguide.sgml
@@ -219,10 +219,7 @@
documentation on FreeBSD.
<itemizedlist>
<listitem>
- <para><filename>textproc/sp</filename></para>
- </listitem>
- <listitem>
- <para><filename>textproc/openjade</filename></para>
+ <para><filename>textproc/jade</filename></para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para><filename>textproc/iso8879</filename></para>
@@ -231,7 +228,7 @@
<para><filename>textproc/dsssl-docbook-modular</filename></para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
- <para><filename>textproc/docbook-420</filename></para>
+ <para><filename>textproc/docbook-sgml</filename></para>
</listitem>
</itemizedlist>
</para>
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smørgrav - des@des.no
On 10/16/14 3:12 PM, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > The list of tools required to build the documentation on FreeBSD is > outdated. The following patch fixes it: > > diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/docguide.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/docguide.sgml > index 3cc1d60..9626592 100644 > --- a/doc/src/sgml/docguide.sgml > +++ b/doc/src/sgml/docguide.sgml > @@ -219,10 +219,7 @@ > documentation on FreeBSD. > <itemizedlist> > <listitem> > - <para><filename>textproc/sp</filename></para> > - </listitem> > - <listitem> > - <para><filename>textproc/openjade</filename></para> > + <para><filename>textproc/jade</filename></para> > </listitem> > <listitem> > <para><filename>textproc/iso8879</filename></para> This replaces openjade by jade. Why? (Arguably, we should recommend opensp if we're going to suggest openjade.) > @@ -231,7 +228,7 @@ > <para><filename>textproc/dsssl-docbook-modular</filename></para> > </listitem> > <listitem> > - <para><filename>textproc/docbook-420</filename></para> > + <para><filename>textproc/docbook-sgml</filename></para> > </listitem> > </itemizedlist> > </para> That looks correct. We should also remove iso8879, since it's pulled in by docbook-sgml. And we should add docbook-xml, docbook-xsl, and libxslt. Also, the piece about the catalog file not being updated is surely outdated? Ironically, following the link to the FreeBSD Handbook shows the same problem: They are linking to textproc/docbook-xml-450, which no longer exists.
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes: > This replaces openjade by jade. Why? (Arguably, we should recommend > opensp if we're going to suggest openjade.) More or less by accident. Neither was installed when I ran configure, so the Makefile looked for jade, not openjade. In either case, you can remove textproc/sp; it is included in textproc/jade, while textproc/openjade has a dependency on textproc/opensp. > And we should add docbook-xml, docbook-xsl, and libxslt. Do you have XML documentation? I didn't look around to much, the files I needed to edit were SGML. I already had the XML tools, since I have textproc/docproj installed. > Also, the piece about the catalog file not being updated is surely > outdated? It worked fine, but I didn't want to remove it since I didn't know for sure that it would work for everybody. DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav - des@des.no
On 10/20/14 3:39 PM, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes: >> This replaces openjade by jade. Why? (Arguably, we should recommend >> opensp if we're going to suggest openjade.) > > More or less by accident. Neither was installed when I ran configure, > so the Makefile looked for jade, not openjade. In either case, you can > remove textproc/sp; it is included in textproc/jade, while > textproc/openjade has a dependency on textproc/opensp. I have updated the documentation based on your information. >> And we should add docbook-xml, docbook-xsl, and libxslt. > > Do you have XML documentation? I didn't look around to much, the files > I needed to edit were SGML. I already had the XML tools, since I have > textproc/docproj installed. Yes, it's used for building man pages. >> Also, the piece about the catalog file not being updated is surely >> outdated? > > It worked fine, but I didn't want to remove it since I didn't know for > sure that it would work for everybody. I have removed this. It was already a just-in-case at the time it was written.