Re: Bug#640737: [copyright-format] Format URL and installation on www.debian.org (Re: Bug#640737: [copyright-format] misc. changes from driver.)
Le Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 05:45:02PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> writes:
>
> > - Published versions are stored in the debian-policy in
> > copyright-format/published/, as XML source and HTML and text
> > documents, without makefile as they are final versions, under names
> > like copyright-format/published/copyright-format-1.0.html.
>
> I think we should include the source
Yes, this is what I have written, modulo the Makefile. I think that there is
an advantage to not rebuild the HTML and TXT versions, as this guarantees that
the distrubuted documents on www.debian.org will stay bit-identical.
The HTML version is currently built using jade, but this is because I have
been conservative and took the same mechanism as for the Debconf spec. It is
trivially buildable with xsltproc on a standard Debian system as the DocBook
source indicates its stylesheet. The TXT is built by converting HTML to text
with the links browser.
We can of course include a Makefile and make sure that the published versions
are always rebuildable, but if jade and links change tiny details in the way
they convert documents (whitespace,…), I think that it would not be a good
reason to change the MD5 sum of the published versions.
> > - Thanks to content negociation on www.debian.org, the current URI for
> > the spec would be
> > http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format-1.0
>
> The advantage of instead using:
>
> http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/
>
> is that, when one is using a simple mapping from URLs to file space, if
> for some reason the document ever needs to be broken into multiple files
> or needs to have images, the URL already assumes each document is in its
> own directory and keeps all those supporting files isolated from each
> other for multiple versions.
I proposed copyright-format-1.0 because it seemed to fit better David's
requirements, as for the URI you propose the file name of the spec would be
‘index.html’. For both URIs it looks equally easy to install the files. I
will follow the WWW team's choice for sure.
Cheers,
--
Charles
Reply to: