Am 13.08.2016 um 00:40 schrieb Jonathan Corbet <cor...@lwn.net>:
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 18:54:06 +0300
> Jani Nikula <jani.nik...@intel.com> wrote:
>
>> With these you should be able to get started with pdf generation. It's a
>> quick transition to pdflatex, the patches are not very pretty, but the
>> pdf output is. Patch 3/3 works as an example where to add your stuff
>> (latex_documents in conf.py) and how.
>
> OK, now I have a bone to pick with you.
>
> I applied this, then decided to install the needed toolchain on the
> Tumbleweed system I've been playing with; it wanted to install 1,727
> packages to get pdflatex. Pandoc just doesn't seem so bad anymore.
I'am complete disenchanted on this topic. My experience is:
1) You wan't get any reasonable typesetting engine which preserves
your disk space. I don't know how many files or packages are installed,
the only thing I know is, a TeX installation is always >1GB.
2) You wan't get a (pdf, ps,..) book with a perfect layout without
any handcraft or at least a *theming*. TeX has many options to influence
the layout and Sphinx provides it's own LaTeX-document class (sphinxmanual)
which is IMHO awful.
> So I switched to the Fedora system, and found myself in a twisty maze of
> missing font files, missing style files, missing babel crap, etc., each
> doled out to me one file per run. But I did eventually get PDFs out of
> it.
On debian it should be enough to install *base* and *recommended*
sudo apt-get install
texlive-base texlive-latex-recommended
> The output isn't great; among other things, it seems to be about 1/2 blank
> pages.
1/2 ? .. I have only empty pages at the start of parts or chapters, which
is a typical layout setting.
> But it's something.
This is the sphinxmanual document class.
> I've applied this so we have something to play with, but it doesn't feel
> like a great solution. This is the sort of installation hell that we
> wanted to get away from.
See above, on debian it should be enough to install the two meta packages.
> It makes me wonder how hard it can really be to
> fix rst2pdf; I wish I could say I'll find some time to figure that out.
> Sigh.
I gave it a try, but as I come closer to the sources I realized that
it is hair-raising. I looked at the issues, added a comment to a related
issue, a few days later the issue was closed without any comment or code
change.
https://github.com/rst2pdf/rst2pdf/issues/556#issuecomment-228779542
My advice, if you don't like to waste your time: forget it.
Some thoughts of mine, wrote in an earlier mail:
> The sphinx-doc build-in LaTeX builder
>
> * http://www.sphinx-doc.org/en/stable/config.html#options-for-latex-output
>
> has some drawbacks, e.g. it produce LaTeX for the pdfTeX engine.
> LaTeX is by default ASCII and it needs some "inputenc" to supporta wider
> range of characters. This is not very helpful if you have a toolchain
> in an international community.
>
> The alternative to LaTeX is to use the XeTeX engine, which supports UTF-8
> encoded input by default and supports TrueType/OpenType fonts directly.
> Thats why I started to write a XeLaTeX builder ...
>
> *
> https://github.com/return42/sphkerneldoc/blob/master/scripts/site-python/xelatex_ext/__init__.py#L15
>
>
> ... but I can't predict when this will be finished ...
>
> However which tool is used, my experience is, that building
> PDF (books) with a minimum of quality is not simple.
> Layout width tables, split table content over pages, switch
> from landscape to portrait and versus, the flow of objects etc.
> .. all this will need some manually interventions.
-- Markus --
