Personally, I'd like to see both a PDF docs package & HTML docs package.
At one stage this is what I was doing for my ISO........but I'm almost
sure the docs are almost ignored.
If there was a preference I'd opt for the HTML docs, but PDFs are easier
to print out.
I would have thought the doc packages would be OS agnostic......well
with the realm of the debs.
On 21/9/20 9:47 pm, Dr. Nikolaus Klepp wrote:
Anno domini 2020 Mon, 21 Sep 10:06:54 +0100
andy pugh scripsit:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2020 at 20:10, Dr. Nikolaus Klepp <[email protected]> wrote:
I've made a deb with the HTML documentation of linuxcnc 2.8.0
I know that you were not suggesting that we remove the PDF docs, but I
would like to expand the discussion in that direction.
The current tool chain can not build docs in non-latin alphabets. For
2.8 we had a fairly big submission of Chinese docs. These render OK in
HTML:
http://linuxcnc.org/docs/2.8/html/getting-started/updating-linuxcnc-cn.html
but attempting to build a PDF leads to a build failure.
A partial solution is to replace latex with xetex in the docs
toolchain. However xetex is not available in Stretch.
A neater solution might be to use asciidoctor-pdf which is a one-step
process from asciidoc to pdf. It seems to work well (and with Chinese)
but relies on Ruby >v2.3 which is only the default version on the
newer OS versions.
This is partly a buildbot issue. Do the docs that are distributed with
the LinuxCNC version for a particular necessarily have to have been
built with that OS?
Options:
1) Keep things as they are, don't attempt to distribute a Chinese docs package.
2) Abandon PDF, distribute docs as HTML in the docs package.
3) Use xetex to make PDFs, abandon PDF docs build on older OS versions.
4) Use asciidoctor-pdf to make PDFs, abandon building PDF docs on
older OS version
5) ...
I'd opt for 2 - but I'm biased :)
Nik
_______________________________________________
Emc-developers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
