[distcc] DocBook version of distcc manual

[Frerich Raabe]

On Fri, 01/31/03 at 11:30, Martin Pool wrote:
> On 31 Jan 2003, Frerich Raabe <raabe at kde.org> wrote:
> 
> > I just finished a first conversion of the distcc manual to DocBook 4.2 XML,
> > which is IMHO the most appropriate (and the nicest) format for such a task.
> 
> That's great!  Thankyou.
> 
> It's a more standard format and it may also be easier for BSD people
> to process than Linuxdoc-SGML.

I wouldn't dare to confirm that; even though the name suggests otherwise,
the coverage of tools which are able to process LinuxDoc SGML in a satisfying
manner is sufficient on operating systems other than Linux, too.

> > While I was busy converting the document (and god knows I'm no expert with
> > this, I didn't even write a single megabyte of docbook markup yet), I also
> > tried to correct a few errors in the documentation, such as typos; sometimes
> > I was able to correct actual errors in the documentation (like, 4200 is not
> > the default port anymore).
> 
> OK.  As it happens I was looking at a printout last night and spotted
> some other things that need to be fixed.
> 
> Can you tell me what CVS version of the manual you started from so
> that I know if any other changes have to be merged?

I used distcc.sgml revision 1.95; I already spotted a few typos in my version
as well, so if you commit things we could indeed immediately begin fixing :-/.

> > In any case, I would appreciate it if people could look through this, help
> > spot typos, inaccurate or suboptimal expressions, and perhaps suggest
> > improvements.
> 
> There are a couple of validation warnings.  I'll check it in to CVS
> later today and we can sort out any problems from there.

Which tool did you use for validating? I use the xmllint program as shipped
with the libxml library (http://libxml.org), and neither the simple
test for well-formedness, nor using the SGML parser, nor validating the
document against the specified DTD triggered any warnings here.

- Frerich