[Scons-users] Sphinx builder

[Saša Janiška]

On Ned, 2016-01-10 at 10:48 +0100, Dirk Bächle wrote:

> you mean "you suggest" and "I do all the work"? ;) 

Not at all! It's only idea to consider, and I believe there are
evaluating methods which enable to decide whether it's feasible to do it
or not *prior* to the conversion...similar as you do with the idea to
possibly switch to Git.

> I've setup the DocBook toolchain because it's what I think works best
> for the given case. If someone prefers Sphinx/AsciiDoc/"Other
> markdowns" he/she simply has to follow the workflow of the current
> toolchain and provide a complete replacement. I'll be glad to review
> your proposal...and hopefully accept it for a switch in the end.

The point is that according to Wikipedia page
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AsciiDoc)

"AsciiDoc is a human-readable document format, *semantically equivalent
to DocBook XML*, but using plain-text mark-up conventions. AsciiDoc
documents can be created using any text editor and read “as-is”, or
rendered to HTML or any other format supported by a DocBook tool-chain,
i.e. PDF, TeX, Unix manpages, e-books, slide presentations, etc."

Iow, suggestion is that you will be able to still use your DocBook-based
toolchain, but making it easier for contributors (I assume there is no
point discussing that writing AsciiDoc is easier than DocBook markup.)

Personally, I was strongly considering to use AsciiDoc, but after
deciding to do project in Python, I opt for rst/Sphinx as markup for all
my writings (blog posts, study notes, larger articles etc.)

Lastly, I still haven't decided whether I'll use SCons over CMake since
the latter also has CPack which might be handy to automate creating
packages in several output formats.


Sincerely,
Gour

-- 
The intricacies of action are very hard to understand. 
Therefore one should know properly what action is, 
what forbidden action is, and what inaction is.