Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

manual: use historical nixpkgs revision to obtain needed xls files #55

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

sternenseemann
Copy link
Contributor

NixOS/nixpkgs#212289 removes the xls files we relied on in favor of a new solution that goes from options.json to docbook using a python script. This commit is a band-aid approach of pulling in the necessary files from an old nixpkgs revision to fix the build of the manual until we can solve it properly.

Since the intention of upstream is to get rid of docbook for good, it probably makes sense to port our module documentation to markdown already when porting our manual build process to the new toolchain.

cc @aszlig

NixOS/nixpkgs#212289 removes the xls files we
relied on in favor of a new solution that goes from options.json to
docbook using a python script. This commit is a band-aid approach of
pulling in the necessary files from an old nixpkgs revision to fix the
build of the manual until we can solve it properly.

Since the intention of upstream is to get rid of docbook for good, it
probably makes sense to port our module documentation to markdown
already when porting our manual build process to the new toolchain.
@aszlig
Copy link
Member

aszlig commented Feb 3, 2023

Since the intention of upstream is to get rid of docbook for good, it probably makes sense to port our module documentation to markdown already when porting our manual build process to the new toolchain.

I'd very much move towards that instead of applying this band-aid here, since even if the manual is broken for a while, the link in our README always points to the latest successful build and I'd rather avoid increasing the eval time even more.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants