Re: Proposed FAQ in DocBook (Attn: tetex maintainer)

[Shaddy Baddah <Shaddy dot Baddah at msa dot hinet dot net>]

Hi,

Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
>>Probably, but a successful build of the Cygwin HTML documentation relies
>>on texi2html being present.
> 
> 
> Ah.

Nice one of me to come into the discussion a week late, but I've been
doing something recently that required texi2html.

Not wanting to gripe or anything, I genuinely appreciate all the
voluntary effort that goes into cygwin, but I flagged this a while back
(although I bumbled along in the thread):
http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/2005-05/msg00554.html

Anyway, I just thought I'd flag another dependency on texi2html I have
perceived (not verified). At least when building Xemacs packages from
CVS, there is some dependency on this executable. Now, that suggests to
me that the xemacs-sumo would be dependant as well.

> It wasn't dropped intentionally, as it wasn't even supposed to be in 2.0.x.
> 
 > Indeed.  I'm not sure what that means, maybe the --without-texi2html
> switch was broken in 2.0.x.

I just found this all out the hard way. I noticed the switch in the
mknetrel file for 3.0.0-3, and knowing that the executable was included
in 2.0.x, I wondered about the rationale of its' inclusion.

Looking for comment, I noticed that the switch was included in 2.0.x and
it became obvious that it shouldn't have gone into the build in the
first place.

That's when I decided to use the mailing list search function. Moral of
the (yes, rather boring) story is that you should always search the
mailing list first.

Otherwise, Debian has a whole package just for that script... is it
untrendy to follow suit?

Thanks for your attention,
Shaddy

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/