On May 7, 2021 6:58 PM, brian m. carlson wrote: >Subject: Re: [RFC suggestion] Generate manpage directly with Asciidoctor > >On 2021-05-07 at 12:02:13, Randall S. Becker wrote: >> On May 7, 2021 2:07 AM, Bagas Sanjaya wrote: >> >To: Git Users <git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >Subject: [RFC suggestion] Generate manpage directly with Asciidoctor >> >Asciidoctor has support for directly generating manpage, see [1]. >> > >> >We support using Asciidoctor as drop-in replacement for original >> >Asciidoc, but currently we need to use xmlto together with >> >Asciidoc(tor) to produce manpages. However, most users don't inclined >> >to install xmlto toolchain, partly because they had to download more >> >than 300 MB of data just to install xmlto and its dependencies (including >dblatex and texlive). >> > >> >So completely migrating to Asciidoctor can eliminate xmlto >> >requirement for generating manpage. >> > >> >What do you think about above? >> >> Our toolchain does not support asciidoctor itself because of porting issues. I >am not sure it is available everywhere. > >I think Asciidoctor is pure Ruby, since it also uses JRuby and Opal to run in Java >and JavaScript environments. Ruby is relatively portable to most architectures >and systems (for example, it runs on 16 Debian architectures). > >Is the problem in your case Ruby or is it Asciidoctor itself? I'm happy to send >portability patches to Asciidoctor if necessary, but I'm not sure I'm a good >candidate to send patches to Ruby itself, especially for an OS I don't use. In this case, Ruby is not 100% portable to all platforms. I have an old port, but the latest version is not portable because of unportable dependencies - not for a lack of a large amount of trying. So the assumption is not entirely workable. My only option is to take the pre-generated pages from the manpages repo. -Randall
