From: Todd Zullinger Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2026 04:49:44 GMT Subject: Re: [NOTES 03/07] Documentation Message-ID: <20261007044944.PjN-Ln9E@teonanacatl.net> In-Reply-To: Thank you for the nice summaries Taylor. Taylor Blau wrote: > Topic: Documentation > * Peff: We support both AsciiDoc and Asciidoctor. Would it help to get > out of that dual world? > > * Patrick: Traditionally this was for migration. AsciiDoc was thought to > be unmaintained, but it is maintained now. > > * Peff: We could move to Asciidoctor. > > * brian: Fedora still uses AsciiDoc. Asciidoctor is well maintained, > written in Ruby, and reasonably portable. It depends on how much we > want to support. I do not know whether Fedora is still an obstacle. The Fedora packages have used Asciidoctor by default since e942c8d (use Asciidoctor to build documentation when possible, 2020-02-25). https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/git/c/e942c8d That hasn't changed since I stopped maintaining the git package, so Fedora hasn't had an issue with a switch to Asciidoctor for quite a long time. CentOS Stream / RHEL uses AsciiDoc (with the odd exception of 9). They _could_ use Asciidoctor relatively easily; it is maintained for EPEL already. But if Red Hat really dislike requiring Asciidoctor for git builds in RHEL, they could ship the pre-built docs, as I used to do for EL-5 builds due to an unsupported (read: ancient) AsciiDoc version. If we switched to Asciidoctor, it _might_ open the door to replacing the docbook/xmlto dependencies and having Asciidoctor directly generate the man pages. I haven't thought about or looked at that in a long, long time, so I don't know if that would be a worthwhile change or not. I don't recall if we need the XML step for other outputs, like info or PDF (neither of which I ever spent much time trying to build). -- Todd