Re: What's needed for mutt 1.6?
Thomas Roessler <tlr@xxxxxx>, 2007-03-02 18:13 +0100:
> On 2007-03-02 17:17:28 +0100, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>
> > I think Mike Smith was volunteering at one point to transition the
> > thing to docbook, or some such.
>
> "The thing" = "the manpage", if I recall correctly.
>
> > Mike?
Yeah, in a few schmears of activity over the last 18 months or so,
I have made a good number of improvements to the manpages
stylesheet in the DocBook XSL stylesheets distribution -- adding
support for tables and a good number of other things. I think it
could be worthwhile to update the mutt man-page build process to
use that manpages stylesheet, along with using the HTML stylesheet
and possibly changing the PDF build over to use the XSL-FO
stylesheet instead of the (no longer supported) DSSSL/Jade stuff
it uses now. And I would be willing to put some time into setting
that stuff up (if the mutt committers think it might be worthwhile
to do it).
--Mike
> > 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.
--
Michael(tm) Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike/