This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: docbook xml toolchain
- From: Patrick Eisenacher <eisenacher at fillmore-labs dot com>
- To: Andreas <news dot Andreas at gmx dot net>
- Cc: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 13:22:14 +0200
- Subject: Re: docbook xml toolchain
- Organization: Fillmore Labs GmbH <http://www.fillmore-labs.com/>
- References: <BDEIKLGLODPANMFFLBDIMEHMCDAA.news.Andreas@gmx.net>
glad to hear that you managed to get the latest passivetex alive &
kickin on cygwin. Just for completeness, here are the answers to your
Hmmm, sounds good, I guess /bin/fmtutil needs to be patched, right? There
are other files related to fmtutil.cnf:
Actually, the file's name is fmtutil.cnf, but Windows strangely doesn't
give you its extension. Leave the other ones alone. They are not used.
Let´s assume that I found the lines that needs a fix and put this in
DocbookCygwinFmtutil.diff, does a simple
patch -N -u /usr/share/texmf/web2c/fmtutil.cnf DocbookCygwinFmtutil.diff
would be sufficient or should I rerun your script (further dependencies in
the process of buliding the passivetex stuff?)?
You have to call
after patching, otherwise your modifications won't be reflected in tex's
Would a second, third,... run of your install script potentially break
things that were created at the first run?
No, if patch (the executable) realizes that a patch has already been
applied, it ignores it. You can safely rerun a patch.
I just converted the fo file into pdf using fop and it is nicely formatted.
My impression based on the feedback on the docbook-apps mailing list is
that fop gets more development than passivetex. But I could be
completely wrong about this. I haven't done any serious pdf generation.
I had just set up the docbook pdf toolchain once and gave it a couple of
tests. Which one (fop/passivetex) gives you the better results?
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html