Drop generated manpages when there is an `.rst` source

[b1rger]

It would be great if the build system did the generation of the manpage files instead

[LBCrion]

I originally opted to distribute the docs as both .rst and man pages, in order to avoid introducing a build time dependency on docutils. Perhaps it's worth adding this as an optional dependency? I.e. if docutils are present we rebuild the manpages and if it isn't we use the included version?

[b1rger]

Hm, I was thinking of the overhead of maintaining two files with the same content in the repository - at some point a contributor might not realize that one format depends on the other and only changes stuff in one of the two. But feel free to keep them both and close this issue!

(In the packages I maintain there is usually a build step that builds manpages. That step only runs if the required utility is available - see for example in sway or labwc)

[LBCrion]

I updated meson.build to check if rst2man is available and if it is, the man pages will be rebuilt before installation.

[01micko]

scdoc is handy - yes a different dependency but you could reasonably easily convert the .rst files to .scd.

scdoc converts scd markdown to roff. Does a pretty reasonable job too, and packaged by many/most distros.

[LBCrion]

Is there a benefit of using scdoc over docutils rst2man? (which is what I added in beta15).

On Sat, 10 Aug 2024, 14:07 micko, @.***> wrote:

scdoc is handy - yes a different dependency but you could reasonably easily convert the .rst files to .scd.

scdoc converts scd markdown to roff. Does a pretty reasonable job too, and packaged by many/most distros.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/LBCrion/sfwbar/issues/145#issuecomment-2281353908, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ASHPFFEAC73B2KCYCLJERVTZQX66BAVCNFSM6AAAAABDOCJ5NKVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDEOBRGM2TGOJQHA . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: @.***>

[01micko]

Probably only that it is pretty common among distros.

[01micko]

@LBCrion , @b1rger is the maintainer at debian for many wayland related projects so that is why I believe this issue was raised. And probably why sfwbar remains at beta-13 in debian testing and unstable at this point in time.

Would that be correct @b1rger ? Oh, and thanks for your efforts too for light weight wlroots related stuff :)

[LBCrion]

It should be possible to force the man page generation from .rst files now (as of beta15) using the 'build-doc' meson option. This adds a build time dependency on docutils, but it's a fairly common package on all major distros I believe.

On Sat, 10 Aug 2024, 16:56 micko, @.***> wrote:

@LBCrion https://github.com/LBCrion , @b1rger https://github.com/b1rger is the maintainer at debian for many wayland related projects so that is why I believe this issue was raised. And probably why sfwbar remains at beta-13 in debian testing and unstable at this point in time.

Would that be correct @b1rger https://github.com/b1rger ? Oh, and thanks for your efforts too for light weight wlroots related stuff :)

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/LBCrion/sfwbar/issues/145#issuecomment-2282177915, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ASHPFFBJIUQDHKJXXX2I3V3ZQYSXZAVCNFSM6AAAAABDOCJ5NKVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDEOBSGE3TOOJRGU . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

[LBCrion]

That said, if there is anything I can do to make packaging easier, please do let me know.

On Sat, 10 Aug 2024, 17:15 Lev Babiev, @.***> wrote:

It should be possible to force the man page generation from .rst files now (as of beta15) using the 'build-doc' meson option. This adds a build time dependency on docutils, but it's a fairly common package on all major distros I believe.

On Sat, 10 Aug 2024, 16:56 micko, @.***> wrote:

@LBCrion https://github.com/LBCrion , @b1rger https://github.com/b1rger is the maintainer at debian for many wayland related projects so that is why I believe this issue was raised. And probably why sfwbar remains at beta-13 in debian testing and unstable at this point in time.

Would that be correct @b1rger https://github.com/b1rger ? Oh, and thanks for your efforts too for light weight wlroots related stuff :)

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/LBCrion/sfwbar/issues/145#issuecomment-2282177915, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ASHPFFBJIUQDHKJXXX2I3V3ZQYSXZAVCNFSM6AAAAABDOCJ5NKVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDEOBSGE3TOOJRGU . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

[01micko]

TBH, I had no problem building and packaging Sfwbar beta-15 the debian way. I host a tiny repo (for BunsenLabs) here with the current state of the repo here.

[b1rger]

@LBCrion , @b1rger is the maintainer at debian for many wayland related projects so that is why I believe this issue was raised. And probably why sfwbar remains at beta-13 in debian testing and unstable at this point in time.

Would that be correct @b1rger ?

Ah, no, first #147 was the blocker and then I simply did not have time to package newer versions. I'll try to look into updating the package in the next few days.

The issue with the documentation just came up because the Debian packaging linter also checks for spelling errors and there were some in the rst files (and also in the generated manpages). I think it just generates maintainance overhead shipping both in the source

Oh, and thanks for your efforts too for light weight wlroots related stuff :)

You're welcome ;)

[01micko]

Thanks a lot @b1rger for clarifying :)

I'll see if I can take a look at the man pages for any typos/spelling errors.

[01micko]

Had a go @b1rger see #223