[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Extra AUTHOR section in a docbook xml manpage.



Am Mittwoch, den 19.04.2006, 10:28 +0900 schrieb Charles Plessy:

> I have almost finished to package dialign (multiple sequence alignment),
> and I have a little problem with the manpage. The xsl stylesheet adds an
> extra AUTHOR section despite the AUTHORS section in my xml sources.
> 
> Here is an html version :
> http://charles.plessy.org/debian/dialign2-2.1.html
> 
> The source:
> http://charles.plessy.org/debian/dialign2-2.1.xml
> 
> The conversion is done with the following command:
> xsltproc -''-nonet /usr/share/sgml/docbook/stylesheet/xsl/nwalsh/manpages/docbook.xsl debian/dialign2-2.1.xml

Forget Debian's docbook-xsl package. It's hopelessly outdated Use the
current docbook-xsl snapshots instead (the upcoming 1.70.0 version).

I would further not use:

<address>&dhemail;</address>
<author>
  &dhfirstname;
  &dhsurname;
</author>

Instead use the sample you can find e.g. in the manpage sources at
http://cvs.wgdd.de/cgi-bin/cvsweb/fglrx_man/. Any extra AUTHORS section
in the XML source is not necessary. Also edition, date and productname
(or refmiscinfo calss=software|version|source) are supported with the
upcoming stylesheets.

I suggest: Do not build the manpage during build-time. Build it earlier
so you can drop any dependency to the outdated docbook-xsl package. The
next problem is, the the catalog rewrites the 'current'-HTTP-source to
the outdated Debian package.

> I hope you can help me: I would like to use xml instead of sgml for
> writing manpages in my packages (and scientific software very often lack
> manpages).

FACK.

> (any general comment on the manpage is also welcome. It was generated by
> cut-and-paste from the manual, hence the LGPL licence, which is the one
> of the whole dialign sources).

HTH. I can just recommend to use the current snapshots. Michael Smith
did a real good job. My manpages (BTW: written for Debian too) are of
course just samples.

Regards, Daniel



Reply to: