Re: [RFC suggestion] Generate manpage directly with Asciidoctor

["brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1479 bytes --]

On 2021-05-07 at 12:02:13, Randall S. Becker wrote:
> On May 7, 2021 2:07 AM, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> >To: Git Users <git@vger.kernel.org>
> >Subject: [RFC suggestion] Generate manpage directly with Asciidoctor
> >Asciidoctor has support for directly generating manpage, see [1].
> >
> >We support using Asciidoctor as drop-in replacement for original Asciidoc, but
> >currently we need to use xmlto together with Asciidoc(tor) to produce
> >manpages. However, most users don't inclined to install xmlto toolchain, partly
> >because they had to download more than 300 MB of data just to install xmlto
> >and its dependencies (including dblatex and texlive).
> >
> >So completely migrating to Asciidoctor can eliminate xmlto requirement for
> >generating manpage.
> >
> >What do you think about above?
> 
> Our toolchain does not support asciidoctor itself because of porting issues. I am not sure it is available everywhere.

I think Asciidoctor is pure Ruby, since it also uses JRuby and Opal to
run in Java and JavaScript environments.  Ruby is relatively portable to
most architectures and systems (for example, it runs on 16 Debian
architectures).

Is the problem in your case Ruby or is it Asciidoctor itself?  I'm happy
to send portability patches to Asciidoctor if necessary, but I'm not
sure I'm a good candidate to send patches to Ruby itself, especially for
an OS I don't use.
-- 
brian m. carlson (he/him or they/them)
Houston, Texas, US

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]