On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 07:18:26PM +0200, W. Borgert wrote: > Yes, packaging xmlroff in its current state would allow > more people to try xmlroff and (maybe) attract developers. > It should go into experimental, IMHO.
Forget my last sentence. xmlroff 0.5 is fit for unstable. The new version compiles and runs fine on my amd64 etch box. It is much easier to build than previous versions (0.3.x) and generates PDF files from simple DocBook sources with docbook-xsl. In contrast to the TeX based DocBook toolchains (db2latex-xsl and dblatex) or FOP, using LTR (e.g. English) and RTL (e.g. Hebrew) in one document works well. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
