On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 10:17:21PM -0400, Todd Zullinger wrote: > Elsewhere in this thread, Jeff made the very valid point > that we're probably wise to keep using the docbook/xmlto > chain as long as we're supporting both asciidoc and > asciidoctor. Unless it turns out that it's more work to > coax asciidoctor (and the various 1.5 and 2.0 releases in > common use) to work with that same docbook/xmlto chain than > it is to do it directly, that is. One of my secret (maybe not so secret?) implications there was that it might be worth dropping asciidoc support sooner rather than later. I.e., if it is a burden to make it work with both old and new systems, then let's make the jump to having it work with the new system. IMHO we can be a bit more cavalier with saying "you must have a recent-ish asciidoctor to build the docs", because it's so easy for us to provide a binary distribution of the built HTML and manpages (in fact, we already do so for the install-man-quick target). So it doesn't really leave any platforms out in the cold; it just means they have to tweak their build procedure. -Peff
