Re: HTML manual tarball (was: Bad manuals)
---On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 21:16:26 +0200, Michael Nordström said > On Thu, Jun 14, 2001, Chris Hawks wrote: >> Actually, I meant that we should have a tarball available (on the >> website) that contains only the HTML manual, man pages, and FAQ. So >> interested parties and people like me who aren't set up to build the >> manual could get the docs. > > And I meant that I have added it to the Makefile so that the next > time I create new Plucker packages I will also create a HTML manual > package ;-) > > The FAQ is already available at the web site and the man pages are > in a "correct" format from the very beginning. Cool! (wiping egg off face ;^) --re: Re: HTML manual tarball (was: Bad manuals) Chris #include #include [EMAIL PROTECTED] Christopher R. Hawks Software Engineer Syscon Plantstar a Division of Syscon International
Re: HTML manual tarball (was: Bad manuals)
On Thu, Jun 14, 2001, Chris Hawks wrote: > Actually, I meant that we should have a tarball available (on the > website) that contains only the HTML manual, man pages, and FAQ. So > interested parties and people like me who aren't set up to build the > manual could get the docs. And I meant that I have added it to the Makefile so that the next time I create new Plucker packages I will also create a HTML manual package ;-) The FAQ is already available at the web site and the man pages are in a "correct" format from the very beginning. /Mike
Re: HTML manual tarball (was: Bad manuals)
---On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 19:23:52 +0200, Michael Nordström said > On Mon, Jun 11, 2001, Chris Hawks wrote: >> >> Maybe this would be a good time to lobby for a 'manual - only' tarball. > > OK, I have added that to the Makefile. It will only include the HTML > manual; if you want the Plucker document or the man pages for the > tools then you have to download the binary package. Actually, I meant that we should have a tarball available (on the website) that contains only the HTML manual, man pages, and FAQ. So interested parties and people like me who aren't set up to build the manual could get the docs. --re: HTML manual tarball (was: Bad manuals) Chris #include #include [EMAIL PROTECTED] Christopher R. Hawks Software Engineer Syscon Plantstar a Division of Syscon International
HTML manual tarball (was: Bad manuals)
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001, Chris Hawks wrote: > > Maybe this would be a good time to lobby for a 'manual - only' tarball. OK, I have added that to the Makefile. It will only include the HTML manual; if you want the Plucker document or the man pages for the tools then you have to download the binary package. /Mike
Re: Bad manuals
---On 10 Jun 2001 10:21:00 +0100, MJ Ray said > After prompting on the newsgroups, I've noticed that I can't build the > plucker manuals. This is because they are in latex but use some > packages that aren't in tetex, most notably html, but also because > they want to use latex2html instead of tex4ht (ht latex). I don't have TeX or the other packages installed so I take the "coward's" way out. I download the 'bin' tarball and install only the manual. (I build the rest directly from the source.) Maybe this would be a good time to lobby for a 'manual - only' tarball. --re: Bad manuals Chris #include #include [EMAIL PROTECTED] Christopher R. Hawks Software Engineer Syscon Plantstar a Division of Syscon International
Re: Bad manuals
Hi! > > Alexander, can you comment? > > Alexander has emailed me off-list to say that it was because tex4ht > doesn't exist for OS/2 at the time it was written. He also gave me > lots of other useful comments. Can someone tell me what tex4ht > availability is like on other platforms now? Actually for building Plucker don't care about OS/2. I mean, there is no compiler for PalmOS-apps, so on OS/2 nobody will try to actually build the package. Besides most OS/2 users wouldn't want to build anything at all. ;) > Also, is the "hyperref" package available on other platforms and tex > distributions? Most importantly, miktex on windows, emTeX on OS/2, > OzTeX (or whatever is the standard now) on Mac and 4allTex on DOS. If it is a plain TeX-package it should work on OS/2. Concerning emTeX I must say, that it is allmost unchanged for about 4 years now. And besides the fact that I wrote the docs on OS/2 I'm pretty sure that nobody would want to build Plucker nor the docs on that platform. So you can quite safely leave OS/2 out of scope for that purpose. And though I really miss my WPS even I had to change my OS recently to Unix. I strongly hope that the GNOME-people get some of the WPS functionality working soon. (Templates and stuff which I really miss...) Concerning mikTeX: As far as I saw from the installation I did for our secretary at the university it is some sort of teTeX-port. I'd suspect that everything that works on teTeX will work on mitTeX as well and in allmost the same fashion. As soon as there is some time I've to install quite a lot of packages there (RevTeX and stuff like that) and then I can tell you how compatible it actually is. I want to just copy all the stuff from our Unix-cluster to that machine run the index generator and see what happens. If it works, well it would be quite compatible. Ah, BTW. mikTeX has recently replaced emTeX on Windows, just FYI. That is before mikTeX became largely known emTeX was there a standard as well. The reason is that emTeX is (in parts) "family mode" that is an app that can run both on OS/2 as well as on DOS natively. About the Mac and a Non-GUI-DOS, I can't comment at all. -- CU\\ In the beginning was The Word. // Alexander Wagner // And The Word was Content-type: text/plain \\
Re: Bad manuals
"David A. Desrosiers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Alexander, can you comment? Alexander has emailed me off-list to say that it was because tex4ht doesn't exist for OS/2 at the time it was written. He also gave me lots of other useful comments. Can someone tell me what tex4ht availability is like on other platforms now? Also, is the "hyperref" package available on other platforms and tex distributions? Most importantly, miktex on windows, emTeX on OS/2, OzTeX (or whatever is the standard now) on Mac and 4allTex on DOS. Thanks, -- MJR
Re: Bad manuals
> I suggest that the manuals are moved to use tex4ht and hopefully remain > compatible with building with latex2html. If no-one is able, I will make > a start, but it may be some time. But first I wanted to ask, is there a > strong reason why latex2html is used? I believe this was done because the original author of those manuals, Alexander, uses OS/2, and I'm not sure if 'ht' is ported to OS/2. We have to make sure we maintain cross-platform compatibility here. We can't break existing interfaces. Alexander, can you comment? /d
Bad manuals
After prompting on the newsgroups, I've noticed that I can't build the plucker manuals. This is because they are in latex but use some packages that aren't in tetex, most notably html, but also because they want to use latex2html instead of tex4ht (ht latex). Briefly, tetex is the largest standard tex distribution, so I'm slightly surprised that it's using things not found there. Also, tex4ht uses the latex formatting engine to generate html while latex2html reimplements a subset of it in another language. I suggest that the manuals are moved to use tex4ht and hopefully remain compatible with building with latex2html. If no-one is able, I will make a start, but it may be some time. But first I wanted to ask, is there a strong reason why latex2html is used? -- MJR
