apt-3.90 build error

[Richard Bos]

Op maandag 11 december 2006 21:55, schreef Gary L. Greene, Jr.:
> > Ah, that is a pity.  As I used to build them with xmlto.  The command I
> > use(d) is "xmlto man <input file>".  It should have been peanuts for Ralf
> > to have this included in the Makefila.am.  I say 'it's a pity', as it may
> > occur in the future that apt-rpm is merged with the upstream apt (I read
> > that in the email archives).  Hopefully this happens and than the xml
> > formatted manpages are to be used again.  Never mind, I'm going to use
> > what you provide :))
>
> Why? What reason is there to move back to using SGML for the man pages?
> Really if you want them in HTML, just use man2html or if you prefer DVI,
> man2dvi. If you really want Postscript or PDF, you can even convert them as
> you need with the various DVI conversion tools. For me, having plain old
> man troff format is far easier to modify or extend, and I hardly think I'm
> alone in that view here on this ML.

I preferred the xml for editing.  But of course I appreciate good (maintained) 
manpages over not maintained xml ones!

> If apt-rpm ever does get re-merged with Debian Apt, I'd think that this
> issue will have to be re-visited, as Debian has documentation policies that
> need adhered to, but CAN be dealt with using a few extra commands in the
> makefile without needing to undo the work that Vincent did creating the new
> man pages.
>
> > What is the status of the apt-3.90?  Is it still considered beta or can
> > it be declared released, as it has been out in the field for 2 months or
> > so?
>
> I've been very confused as to the versioning that you use in this thread...

Sorry.  With 3.90 I mean to refer apt-0.5.5lorg3.90.

> Far as I know, the versioning of apt-rpm is 0.5.5lorg3.x. Are you referring
> to the end version number? If so, then far as I know 0.5.5lorg3.9x is only
> a development release and shouldn't be used in production.

-- 
Richard Bos
Without a home the journey is endless