Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Oct 17, 2021. It is now read-only.

Strange "implicit" wording in doco for a2x --fop option #73

Closed
apjanke opened this issue May 24, 2015 · 8 comments
Closed

Strange "implicit" wording in doco for a2x --fop option #73

apjanke opened this issue May 24, 2015 · 8 comments

Comments

@apjanke
Copy link

apjanke commented May 24, 2015

Here's the a2x man page's description of --fop.

   --fop
       Use FOP to generate PDFs. The default behavior is to use dblatex(1). The --fop
       option is implicit if this option is used.

The last sentence about the option being implicit is confusing to me. This option implicitly enables itself? Is one of the option names here wrong? Looking at the a2x.py code, it looks like --fopt-opts implicitly enables --fop, so that sentence should be moved to the description for --fop-opts.

@elextr
Copy link
Contributor

elextr commented May 24, 2015

I'm sure this has been mentioned before, but maybe it was pre-github or no patch was produced.

The --fop-opts description already says "If this option is specified FOP is used to generate PDFs.". So I think its just a case of replacing "this option" in the --fop description with "--fop-opts".

@rrthomas
Copy link

I just noticed this problem myself. Is there some reason it has not yet been fixed? @elextr's solution seems fine to me.

@elextr
Copy link
Contributor

elextr commented Mar 29, 2018

Basically nobody bothered to provide a pull request for it, fixed in asciidoc-py/asciidoc-py@6896335

@elextr elextr closed this as completed Mar 29, 2018
@rrthomas
Copy link

Thanks! In this case it would seem quicker to fix it yourself than read a pull request, otherwise I would happily have provided one. (Also, I'm waiting for my first pull request to be processed, because otherwise it does not seem worth providing more…)

@elextr
Copy link
Contributor

elextr commented Mar 29, 2018

I certainly didn't mean to imply that you yourself should have made a PR, but the issue has been there for almost two years. Asciidoc has no full time contributors or maintainers so it doesn't matter how little effort it took to do, until somebody does it it won't happen.

I presume your other PR is #126 see new comment for how to proceed.

@mojavelinux
Copy link
Contributor

Asciidoc has no full time contributors or maintainers

To clarify for those who might get confused, that refers to AsciiDoc Python ;)

Asciidoctor is where development on AsciiDoc is being continued and is very much alive.

@elextr
Copy link
Contributor

elextr commented Mar 29, 2018

@mojavelinux yes, was entirely referring to Asciidoc Python, sorry :)

@mojavelinux
Copy link
Contributor

No need to apologize. I know you know that. I just wanted to make sure we leave a trail of breadcrumbs for others following along.

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

No branches or pull requests

4 participants