I suggest we bump PORTVERSION to 3.0 and remove docbook related dependencies.

Yes, I think it's a good idea to remove the Docbook dependencies.

FYI: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=253518

Authors: Yasuhiro Kimura, Dries Michiels :-)
New doctree builds fine with this port installed, yay!

PDF_DESC is already defined in bsd.options.desc.mk. So you need not redefine it in Makefile.

Has all the docs tree been converted to the ascii thing?

I had a look the other day and it looked like most bits were still using docbook, so we probably need to keep the dependencies.

@mat yes, everything it's converted to AsciiDoc. We can remove docbook.

I'll happily give approval for this from docs if it helps this commited.
It's much easier to remember one port than a handful (or having to look them up in the FDP).

In D28609#642417, @mat wrote:

Has all the docs tree been converted to the ascii thing?

I had a look the other day and it looked like most bits were still using docbook, so we probably need to keep the dependencies.

+1 just add the new dependencies here, as we have the legacy documentation,

and please, add po4a>=0.63_1:textproc/po4a to the TRANSLATOR_RUN_DEPENDS as well.

In D28609#657953, @dbaio wrote:

In D28609#642417, @mat wrote:

Has all the docs tree been converted to the ascii thing?

I had a look the other day and it looked like most bits were still using docbook, so we probably need to keep the dependencies.

+1 just add the new dependencies here, as we have the legacy documentation,

and please, add po4a>=0.63_1:textproc/po4a to the TRANSLATOR_RUN_DEPENDS as well.

Like this: https://people.freebsd.org/~dbaio/docproj-hugo.patch

At least for now.

When the legacy is gone, we can remove the rest.
https://www-legacy.freebsd.org/
https://docs-legacy.freebsd.org/

In D28609#657953, @dbaio wrote:

In D28609#642417, @mat wrote:

Has all the docs tree been converted to the ascii thing?

I had a look the other day and it looked like most bits were still using docbook, so we probably need to keep the dependencies.

+1 just add the new dependencies here, as we have the legacy documentation,

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.

In D28609#658423, @driesm.michiels_gmail.com wrote:

I don't understand why the legacy docs are still there. They are not kept up to date as far as I can tell.

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. :)

@dbaio Since it has been approved by a ports commiter (you), doceng (bcr), and a doc commiter (me), can I go ahead and commit this to the ports tree, or do you want to?

In D28609#672233, @debdrup wrote:

@dbaio Since it has been approved by a ports commiter (you), doceng (bcr), and a doc commiter (me), can I go ahead and commit this to the ports tree, or do you want to?

Sure, go for it, please.