Re: What's needed for mutt 1.6?
I think Mike Smith was volunteering at one point to transition the
thing to docbook, or some such.
Mike?
--
Thomas Roessler, W3C <tlr@xxxxxx>
On 2007-03-02 08:10:08 -0800, Brendan Cully wrote:
> From: Brendan Cully <brendan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Paul Walker <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Mutt Developers <mutt-dev@xxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 08:10:08 -0800
> Subject: Re: What's needed for mutt 1.6?
> X-Spam-Level:
> DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=kublai.com;
>
> h=received:received:date:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:x-operating-system:user-agent:x-delivery-agent:from:mail-followup-t
> o; q=dns; s=dk; bh=nrrlC8NOnm0l0RevXFQXrEmZjhQ=;
>
> b=s5VsO918sVMrEhXixZbKe1B6kl9euwp6EzPnxmO5O6fZK+1KavmYVhkwJ/Q8HIvdWWWM3HIYKxz2+qDMIYumy/rUqiuCzrx0oeph/C3+m69a+P2bGewrSc1BQIgWMhfo3oXV7KH0GCtQtEiahfdiIYIwnJ5IZiwYW0/V8wQitwc=
>
> On Friday, 02 March 2007 at 14:47, Paul Walker wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 02:13:53PM -0800, Brendan Cully wrote:
> >
> > > We just need to make sure that eg asciidoc does what mutt needs. No
> > > more than that, I think.
> >
> > The problem is that what mutt needs will expand over time. Isn't that why
> > the doc generation was moved to docbook in the first place...?
>
> Well no, it was really that the old linuxdoc tool chain was
> moribund. I had a devil of a time trying to get it to build on OS X,
> and I think others were having similar problems in other
> environments.