app-text/html-xml-utils attached are two patches and man page. The first attachment contains a fix for the ebuild so it changes the references in the man pages for the normalize utility, so you are pointed to correct manual if you look in SEE ALSO section of man pages in the rest of the package. It also applies a fix(see attachment 2 [details]) for the incl man so you can actually get the tool to work by reading the man page. Add finally it installs a man page for addid(see attachment 3 [details, diff]) The naming scheme I chose was for version 3.4, as the current version in portage is out of date and needs a bump. Feel free to flame me for not doing 2.8 and then filing another bug report for 3.4, but I can't see any defined procedure for what submitters are supposed to do with filing patches/fixes in this situation. If anyone who could clarify this it would be much appreciated as I'm sitting on a few similar changes in my local overlay tree. The simple truth here is all the changes apply to version 2.8, maybe even the old 2.3 version in portage. I didn't try the 2.3 version, because according to the ARCH lines it is redundant anyway. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3.
Created attachment 43505 [details, diff] ebuild changes
Created attachment 43506 [details, diff] Fix for the incl manpage
Created attachment 43507 [details] man page for addid
* JNRowe makes a big apology for not realising that automarkup would result in broken references in the comment. Obviously those attachment numbers in http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70401#c1 are wrong :( They were just supposed to be relative references to the attachments in this bug report.
Thanks. I bumped html-xml-utils and added these patches. As for versioning, it's up to packages' maintainers. If they supports multiple versions they will apply changes to old ebuild, while some maintainers would only change the latest ebuild. I added 2.8-r2 and 3.4 with the patches applied, but dropped 2.3-r1 because of my laziness ;p
