It would be good if someone could screen the current dependencies if they are still needed for the new documentation tree. I imagine that all docbook related ports can be removed as dependency and probably many more.
I went ahead and removed one dependency at a time and tried building the old English docs.
I removed each dependency from the port that caused a failure with the old doc tree.
So dependencies that are required to build the old doc tree are now gone.
This line should be left as it is. It is discouraged to use it in new ports, yes. At the same time it is not desired to remove existing created-by lines. We should probably document it in the handbook. I had been confused about it as well 2 years ago before I learnt about this unwritten convention.
At least for now.
I don't understand why the legacy docs are still there. They are not kept up to date as far as I can tell.
What about copying the current "textproc/docproj" to lets say "textproc/docproj-legacy" and keep the patch as is for the new one.
Not everyone wants to pull in the legacy stuff for development on the new documentation tree.
Anyway I'm only a contributor so that just my contributing opinion. I don't feel strong either way as my initial patch was exactly that one (just adding the new deps).
and please, add po4a>=0.63_1:textproc/po4a to the TRANSLATOR_RUN_DEPENDS as well.
Thats true, maybe we should keep igor in there too.
They're there so we have an easier reference for "how things used to be" without having to rely on archive.org or checking out an old tree and running a local branch. They have their uses in cases like this.
Down the road, once the new documentation, website, and everything else is in order, I think redirects will be setup with HTTP 301 (which should ensure that search engines, spiders and such pick up on the changes, so that nobody ends up on old documentation).
It's a work-in-progress though, and it's a tough call when this cut-over is going to be, since it's still relatively far into the future.
I will note that PDF is mentioned as an optional part in the FDP quickstart, but I don't think it's going worth holding up the review over this.
I think this is good now, and I've got no problem with it as just a documentation project member, but textproc/docproj is owned by the doceng team so it'll be up to one of them to accept.
I'll happily commit once it's been accepted by them. :)