Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] Documentation: switch to pdflatex and fix pdf build

[Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>]

On Sat, 13 Aug 2016, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 18:54:06 +0300
> Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> wrote:
>
>> With these you should be able to get started with pdf generation. It's a
>> quick transition to pdflatex, the patches are not very pretty, but the
>> pdf output is. Patch 3/3 works as an example where to add your stuff
>> (latex_documents in conf.py) and how.
>
> OK, now I have a bone to pick with you.
>
> I applied this, then decided to install the needed toolchain on the
> Tumbleweed system I've been playing with; it wanted to install 1,727
> packages to get pdflatex.  Pandoc just doesn't seem so bad anymore.

Jon, I sent these to unblock Luis, and as a starting point for a
discussion about rst2pdf vs. pdflatex. I didn't mean I'd want these
merged as-is! I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear.

I don't mind at all if you want to drop them.

As I played around, it worked for *me* better than rst2pdf. I had
pdflatex already installed, so I didn't pay attention to the deps, and
the numbers you quote come as a suprise.

> I've applied this so we have something to play with, but it doesn't feel
> like a great solution.  This is the sort of installation hell that we
> wanted to get away from.  It makes me wonder how hard it can really be to
> fix rst2pdf; I wish I could say I'll find some time to figure that out.
> Sigh.

I'm afraid pdf generation is not very high on my list of priorities
right now. Surely I'll get back to this eventually, but not any time
soon. :(

BR,
Jani.


-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center