avoiding build dependency on docbook, etc. in new port
corky1951 at comcast.net
Thu Jun 18 00:01:51 UTC 2009
On Wed 17 Jun 2009 at 13:24:32 PDT Greg Larkin wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Charlie Kester wrote:
>> I'm porting some software that has a build dependency on docbook2man in
>> order to generate its manpages from .docbook files.
>> Testing the port in tinderbox takes a long time, most of it because of
>> the need to build the docbook infrastructure. It seems a shame to use
>> all that CPU time and install all those packages just to get ready to
>> convert some manpages.
>> What's the preferred approach in cases like this? Should I keep the
>> build dependency on docbook2man et al, or should I put pregenerated
>> copies of the manpages in the files directory of the port?
>I feel your pain! I don't think there's any problem pre-generating the
>man page and keeping it in the port's files/ directory.
Actually, this is a suite of tools and there are eleven manpages.
>On the other hand, I recently went through this experience and went a
>different route. YMMV!
>I took over maintainership for security/logcheck a while back, and it
>used docbook2man to create its one (!) man page. After a while, I got
>some requests to strip out that dependency. A user was kind enough to
>point me to docbook2X: http://docbook2x.sourceforge.net/
>This is a much lighter-weight tool for converting docbook to manual
>pages, among other functions. I eventually added it to the ports tree
>and updated the logcheck port to use it.
Now I'm confused. When I used pkg_info to find out what package had
installed docbook2man on my system, it said it was part of
docbook2X-0.8.8_2. It was after I added textproc/docbook2X as a build
dependency that I started seeing a bunch of docbook stuff getting
installed in my tinderbox.
More information about the freebsd-ports