[lkml]   [2003]   [Oct]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: make htmldocs
    > Let's take the Debian example. The Makefiles state that I need db2html to 
    > convert to your chosen HTML format. db2html is provided by docbook-utils,
    > which it would seems installs the files listed publically at:

    Sorry I downloaded source and installed. No db2html emerged, just docbook2html.
    Tried debian's patch for the source. The same.
    Tried symlinking docbook2html to db2html:

    make[1]: Entering directory `/home/clock/linux-2.4.22/Documentation/DocBook'
    rm -rf wanbook
    db2html wanbook.sgml
    jw: Please specify at least one catalog

    Sorry but your guide seems not to work.

    Again, please tell me, how to compile Linux Kernel HTML Documentation.


    > Now, it turns out that docbook-utils is the name of the open source
    > package, as well as the Debian package:
    > So, I guess that tells you what to install.
    > > > > 3) Bugreport: there should be written
    > > > > "Linux kernel depends on DocBook stylesheets. You may download DocBook
    > > > > stylesheets here-and-there." in README
    > > >
    > > > Depends on distribution. We also don't tell for every distribution
    > > > where to get gcc and how to install it.
    > >
    > > Do you say that the place where DocBook stylesheet sources can be downloaded
    > > depends on distribution I have? I have been looking at their sourceforge
    > > project page but there is nothing like "download DocBook stylesheets".
    > > There are DocBook-dsssl and a ton of other cryptic packages but none of them
    > > is stylesheets.
    > Dude, he was just trying to ask what distro you use, in order to help you
    > out. Of course how you install it changes based on the distro you're
    > using.
    > > If there doesn't exist any distribution-idependent installation process
    > > for "DocBook stylesheets", then "DocBook stylesheets" is not portable,
    > > and transitively, "Linux Kernel" is not portable.
    > Given than most Linux distros are open source themselves, and that the
    > documentation for many of them is open, perhaps we should all now take an
    > opportunity to reflect on how non-sensical this statement is. Did you also
    > consider that a bunch of this documentation is available pre-built on the
    > web? For example, a bunch of the kernel API man pages can be found at:
    > > Could you please
    > > recommend me some other open-source free operating system where I don't
    > > need to have a "distribution" to be even able to read it's enclosed
    > > documentation? I have been using Linux Kernel for 7 years but can't anymore
    > > because I am unable to read it's manual.
    > FreeBSD? OpenBSD? NetBSD? Minix? I recommend you look through the list at
    > if you really feel the urge to move on.
    > Cheers,
    > Mikal
    > --
    > Michael Still ( | "All my life I've had one dream,
    > | to achieve my many goals"
    > UTC + 10 | -- Homer Simpson
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:49    [W:5.762 / U:0.168 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site