doc: prepare for commonmark

We are still using Pandoc’s Markdown parser, which differs from CommonMark spec slightly.

Notably:
- Line breaks in lists behave differently.
- Admonitions do not support the simpler syntax https://github.com/jgm/commonmark-hs/issues/75
- The auto_identifiers uses a different algorithm – I made the previous ones explicit.
- Languages (classes) of code blocks cannot contain whitespace so we have to use “pycon” alias instead of Python “console” as GitHub’s linguist

While at it, I also fixed the following issues:
- ShellSesssion was used
- Removed some pointless docbook tags.

1 files changed, 5 insertions, 5 deletions

diff --git a/doc/stdenv/meta.chapter.md b/doc/stdenv/meta.chapter.md
index dd9f53258555e..f226a725480c4 100644
--- a/doc/stdenv/meta.chapter.md
+++ b/doc/stdenv/meta.chapter.md
@@ -130,7 +130,7 @@ Attribute Set `lib.platforms` defines [various common lists](https://github.com/
 
 ### `tests` {#var-meta-tests}
 
-::: warning
+::: {.warning}
 This attribute is special in that it is not actually under the `meta` attribute set but rather under the `passthru` attribute set. This is due to how `meta` attributes work, and the fact that they are supposed to contain only metadata, not derivations.
 :::
 
@@ -175,20 +175,20 @@ The `meta.license` attribute should preferably contain a value from `lib.license
 
 Although it’s typically better to indicate the specific license, a few generic options are available:
 
-### `lib.licenses.free`, `"free"`
+### `lib.licenses.free`, `"free"` {#lib.licenses.free-free}
 
 Catch-all for free software licenses not listed above.
 
-### `lib.licenses.unfreeRedistributable`, `"unfree-redistributable"`
+### `lib.licenses.unfreeRedistributable`, `"unfree-redistributable"` {#lib.licenses.unfreeredistributable-unfree-redistributable}
 
 Unfree package that can be redistributed in binary form. That is, it’s legal to redistribute the *output* of the derivation. This means that the package can be included in the Nixpkgs channel.
 
 Sometimes proprietary software can only be redistributed unmodified. Make sure the builder doesn’t actually modify the original binaries; otherwise we’re breaking the license. For instance, the NVIDIA X11 drivers can be redistributed unmodified, but our builder applies `patchelf` to make them work. Thus, its license is `"unfree"` and it cannot be included in the Nixpkgs channel.
 
-### `lib.licenses.unfree`, `"unfree"`
+### `lib.licenses.unfree`, `"unfree"` {#lib.licenses.unfree-unfree}
 
 Unfree package that cannot be redistributed. You can build it yourself, but you cannot redistribute the output of the derivation. Thus it cannot be included in the Nixpkgs channel.
 
-### `lib.licenses.unfreeRedistributableFirmware`, `"unfree-redistributable-firmware"`
+### `lib.licenses.unfreeRedistributableFirmware`, `"unfree-redistributable-firmware"` {#lib.licenses.unfreeredistributablefirmware-unfree-redistributable-firmware}
 
 This package supplies unfree, redistributable firmware. This is a separate value from `unfree-redistributable` because not everybody cares whether firmware is free.