Re: [PATCH] doc: Allow rst2man.py as an alternative to rst2man

2015-01-03 Thread W. Trevor King 
On Sat, Jan 03, 2015 at 04:49:27PM +0100, David Bremner wrote:
 At the risk of bike-shedding, rewrite the configure check to be more
 obvious. This is pretty subjective, but in particular I'm not a
 big fan of resetting RST2MAN at the bottom of every iteration of the
 for loop.  Also conform a bit more to the convention of using a
 lower case variable in configure and assigning it in Makefile.

I'm fine with all of these changes.

 @@ -854,6 +860,9 @@ HAVE_RST2MAN=${have_rst2man}
  # Whether there's a doxygen binary available for building api documentation
  HAVE_DOXYGEN=${have_doxygen}
  
 +# The path to the rst2man program for building documentation.
 +RST2MAN = ${rst2man}
 +
  # The directory to which desktop files should be installed
  desktop_dir = \$(prefix)/share/applications
  

I'd keep the RST2MAN entry right after HAVE_RST2MAN, instead of having
HAVE_DOXYGEN between them.

Cheers,
Trevor

-- 
This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org).
For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy


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

Re: [PATCH] doc: Allow rst2man.py as an alternative to rst2man

2015-01-03 Thread Tomi Ollila 
On Sat, Jan 03 2015, W. Trevor King wk...@tremily.us wrote:

 On Sat, Jan 03, 2015 at 04:49:27PM +0100, David Bremner wrote:
 At the risk of bike-shedding, rewrite the configure check to be more
 obvious. This is pretty subjective, but in particular I'm not a
 big fan of resetting RST2MAN at the bottom of every iteration of the
 for loop.  Also conform a bit more to the convention of using a
 lower case variable in configure and assigning it in Makefile.

 I'm fine with all of these changes.

I am also -- and I'd prefer lower-case variables -- however the convention
of using lower case variables is not so clear here (or weren't until
David's ${python} path ;) -- we have mixup of upper  lower case variables
there, and otoh, other (auto)configure scripts seems to use *_RST2MAN.

But, instead of working this further we could also consider Jani's irc comment
of dropping rs2man support altogether... or just keep the status quo and
instruct users just install (recent enough) sphinx to their systems to get
man pages created...

Tomi

PS: In one Scientific Linux 6.2 system I build and run notmuch I have

  # Whether there's a sphinx-build binary available for building documentation
  HAVE_SPHINX=0

  # Whether there's a rst2man binary available for building documentation
  HAVE_RST2MAN=1

because sphinx-build is not recent enough -- sphinx-1.0-build would be but
as it cannot be used by default and as rst2man (w/o .py) works I have not 
bothered.
I'd presume anyone else using such an old system will have bigger problems
getting their notmuch compiled (recent enough zlib being one of those), so
this makes me wonder whether there is actually anyone needing rst2man there
(besides me, of course :)

___
notmuch mailing list
notmuch@notmuchmail.org
http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch

Re: [PATCH] doc: Allow rst2man.py as an alternative to rst2man

2015-01-03 Thread David Bremner 
Tomi Ollila tomi.oll...@iki.fi writes:

 I'd presume anyone else using such an old system will have bigger
 problems getting their notmuch compiled (recent enough zlib being one
 of those), so this makes me wonder whether there is actually anyone
 needing rst2man there (besides me, of course :)

I guess the original reasoning was that rst2man was part of
python/docutils and so more likely to already be available.  

d
___
notmuch mailing list
notmuch@notmuchmail.org
http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch