[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Documents vs. Sections


I think the best way to provide sections with doc-base is to include
them in some sort of a registration file:

Section: /instadm/hardware/laptop
Title: Laptops
Abstract: Linux has native support for hardware usually found in laptops,
like PCMCIA and APM.

I think this are the only three things interesting (am I missing

I will work on the transition from my free form ascii structure to this
format (because I can easily strip additional fields for internal use by me ;)

If it is too difficult to make the parser intelligent enough to keep
Sections: and Documents: apart, please rename the Section: field of
documents. Probably to Placement: or Location:.

It would probably be a good idea to forbid Section: fields in package
registrations by default. The reasons are explained in my other mails and
are not repeated here. It would then be a bug for a package to have a
Location: field that does not match with any Section: (this check would be

An optional line:

Section: /devel/debian
Linkto: /debian/devel

will be used if Section is only virtual. In this case, it is an error to
place a document under the Section: name. Instead, it should use a valid
non-link name, as links may be deleted or changed (and then no document
registration should be needed to change). Links are only for convenience of
the user, like /usr/bin/X11.

The point is that a document is not allowed to register under a link name,
it has to use the proper Section: name.

Thank you,
catching up with doc-base

"Rhubarb is no Egyptian god."        Debian GNU/Linux        finger brinkmd@ 
Marcus Brinkmann                   http://www.debian.org    master.debian.org
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de                        for public  PGP Key
http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/       PGP Key ID 36E7CD09

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-doc-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: