utils.sgml patch

[Nicholas Wourms]

Christopher Faylor wrote:

>On Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 02:09:05PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
>>On Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 12:42:54PM +0100, David Starks-Browning wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday 10 Jul 02, Christopher Faylor writes:
>>>
>>>>Applied.  ta da!
>>>>
>>>>cgf
>>>>
>>>Thanks Joshua!
>>>
>>>With all these delightful utils.sgml patches, someone will have to
>>>update the online html docs.  I've never done that before, but I'll
>>>give it a go, hopefully in the next couple of days, if nobody beats me
>>>to it.
>>>
>>>Unless, Corinna, you want me to leave it alone.
>>>
>>Just go ahead!
>>
>
>I've regenerated this in the past but apparently my upgrade to RH Linux
>7.3 left me with some docbook tools that don't like cygwin.  This has
>always been an annoyance with our use of these tools.
>
>I wonder if the sgml files are a barrier to entry for documentation
>contributions.
>
>Anyway, if you can regenerate these files, it would be appreciated,
>David.
>
I'll tell you one thing, it was the biggest P.I.T.A. to get cygwin 
compatible docbook tools setup on both RHL7.3 and cygwin itself.  I do 
not reccomend it for those who do not want to waste an entire day.  You 
may be right in this deterring contributors.  Even after that, latex is 
*still* interpreting some tags strangely.  I'm afraid to contribute 
because I can't be sure my sgml syntax is going to work.  I'd reccomend 
popping over to the redhat docbook-utils maintainer's cubical and see 
what you can't stir up in terms of a decent set of packages for building 
the cygwin docs.  However, when you have it setup, db is the best method 
of creating documentation.  *Sigh*

Cheers,
Nicholas