who finds support for rst2man in the notmuch build process useful?

2015-01-04 Thread David Bremner

Recently in discussion of at

 id:1420300167-5060-1-git-send-email-david at tethera.net

it was proposed we could just eliminate support for non-sphinx based
methods of building the docs. This would require sphinx >= 1.0 and
python-docutils 0.6 to build the docs.

The win for us would be to eliminate some custom python scripting in the
build process to fake some small part of sphinx functionality; it would
also allow us to use more features of sphinx in the .rst source.

Version 1.0 of sphinx is from 2010, and is present e.g. in Debian
stable.

We are having a bit of dependency creep here. One option would be to
generate seperate tarballs of the pre-formatted man pages during the
release process; this _should_ be a matter of running "tar" on the build
tree.

-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 647 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: 



who finds support for rst2man in the notmuch build process useful?

2015-01-04 Thread David Bremner

Recently in discussion of at

 id:1420300167-5060-1-git-send-email-da...@tethera.net

it was proposed we could just eliminate support for non-sphinx based
methods of building the docs. This would require sphinx = 1.0 and
python-docutils 0.6 to build the docs.

The win for us would be to eliminate some custom python scripting in the
build process to fake some small part of sphinx functionality; it would
also allow us to use more features of sphinx in the .rst source.

Version 1.0 of sphinx is from 2010, and is present e.g. in Debian
stable.

We are having a bit of dependency creep here. One option would be to
generate seperate tarballs of the pre-formatted man pages during the
release process; this _should_ be a matter of running tar on the build
tree.



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
notmuch mailing list
notmuch@notmuchmail.org
http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch