avoiding build dependency on docbook, etc. in new port

Charlie Kester 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:
>Hash: SHA1
>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?
>Hi Charlie,
>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 mailing list