[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
why sgmltools being unmaintained isn't so much of a problem
- To: Guylhem Aznar <>
- Subject: why sgmltools being unmaintained isn't so much of a problem
- From: Adam Di Carlo <>
- Date: 26 Sep 1999 15:51:42 -0400
- In-Reply-To: Guylhem Aznar's message of "Sun, 26 Sep 1999 18:29:50 +0200"
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <19990926182950.E1752@victis.oeil.qc.ca>
- Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ;
- Resent-Date: 26 Sep 1999 19:51:36 -0000
- Resent-Message-ID: <d4omPD.A._bF.Iln73@murphy>
- User-Agent: Gnus/5.070096 (Pterodactyl Gnus v0.96) Emacs/20.3
Guylhem Aznar <email@example.com> writes:
> The SGMLtools we use are unmaintained :-(
Assuming folks are able to compile/install the sgml toolchain itself,
the need for SGMLtools honestly isn't that great. After all, the
toolchain is shipped as RedHat packages (by Mark Gallassi) and as
official Debian packages (esp. see my 'task-sgml' metapackge which
should pull everything in).
Now, once we have all that going, the only benefit of SGMLtools is the
'sgmltools' script, which can very easily be replaced by some standard
makefile suffix rules.
So why all the hand-wringing about SGMLtools?
.....Adam Di Carlo....adam@onShore.com.....<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com