On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Dejan Muhamedagic <de...@suse.de> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 02:01:40PM +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Dejan Muhamedagic <de...@suse.de> wrote: >> > Hi Junko-san, >> > >> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 06:42:52PM +0900, Junko IKEDA wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> > May I suggest that you go with the devel version, because >> >> > crm_cli.txt was converted to crm.8.txt. There are not many >> >> > textual changes, just some obsolete parts removed. >> >> >> >> OK, I got "crm.8.txt" from devel. >> >> >> >> Each directory structure for Pacemaker 1.0,1.1 and devel is just a bit >> >> different. >> >> Does 1.0 keep its doc dir structure for now? >> > >> > Until the next release I guess. >> > >> >> If so, it seems that just create html file is not so difficult when >> >> asciidoc is available. >> > >> > No, not difficult. It just depends on the build environment. If >> > asciidoc is found by configure, then it is going to be used to >> > produce the html files. >> >> Do any distros _not_ ship asciidoc? > > AFAIK none of contemporary distributions. And going back three > years or so, it's the other way around.
How quickly we forget. Anyway, I advocate that the project makes decisions based on it being around (but fails gracefully when its not) and leaves it up to older distros to ship a pre-generated copy if they so desire. I can't imagine lack of HTML versions being a deal breaker. And by fail gracefully, I mean the current behavior of just not building those versions of the doc. _______________________________________________________ Linux-HA-Dev: Linux-HA-Dev@lists.linux-ha.org http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
