After upgrading the latex2html on Fedora_35, both PDF and HTML manual
build fine.
But, using diffpdf to compare the versions produced in Mint 19.3, Mint
20.3, and Fedora 35, the Mint version differ in only 27 words, but
Fedora much more.
In the Mint versions, diffpdf (when comparing words) highlights e.g. on
chapter 1.3.4, table 1.1, page 15, for much of the table the "yes" and
"auto" words, even though I cannot see a difference between them. The
source .tex file are all the same. Also, on that table, on Mint 19.3
the entry for x264 is on the next page, on Mint 20.3 it is at the same
page, last entry in the table there. So the layout is not exactly the
same, even though differences are very small (sometime a line is on a
different page). The two version have the same number of pages, though.
On Fedora 35, there are 576 word different compared to Mint 20.3, the
Fedora manual is also 2 pages shorter. E.g. on page 63, "Preset shapes
section" on Mint 20.3 the last line ends with "The first" , on Fedora
there is an extra line after that.
I am not sure it is worthwhile investigation this difference, nothing
obvious jumps to the fore when comparing the log files. There are some
warnings in Fedora's log that are not there in Mint, e.g.
File: mdsffont.def 2013/08/29 v2.31 (Math Design Project)
LaTeX Warning: Font shape declaration has incorrect series value `mc'.
It should not contain an `m'! Please correct it.
Found on input line 53.
and multiple more of these for this font.
I am not the same opinion of Georgy regarding that is does not matter
where the manual comes from when joining it with CinGG. For the
functionality it does not matter, but I believe that one should be able
to build all parts of the whole shipped product (AppImage with online
help), and that incldues the manual.
MatN
