Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID: <42FA37C0.6000903@msa.hinet.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 01:22:08 +0800
From: Shaddy Baddah <Shaddy DOT Baddah AT msa DOT hinet DOT net>
Reply-To: Shaddy DOT Baddah AT msa DOT hinet DOT net
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
CC: Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke AT gnu DOT org>
Subject: Re: Proposed FAQ in DocBook (Attn: tetex maintainer)
References: <878xzh8ulv DOT fsf AT peder DOT flower>
In-Reply-To: <878xzh8ulv.fsf@peder.flower>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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/