Re: Bug#144456: ITP: qref -- debian quick reference.
On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 04:44:44PM -0500, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote:
> Javier Fern?ndez-Sanguino Pe?a (jfs@computer.org) wrote:
> [snip]
> > Well. I do have ideas, have not expressed them in public.
> > Here we go (out of my head):
> >
> > - all documentation that is Debian specific should be in the DDP CVS
> > (that is reasonable, there is currently one exception: installation
> > manual, but seems like a reasonable exception to me)
This is not possible since some may start making document in Docbook
XML/SGML as in the case for newbiedoc. (currently just CVS entry only.
actual activity is in sourceforge and package.)
But if rephrased appropriately, I agree spirit of this statement.
> > - documentation packages should *not* include the documentation, they
> > should just do a "cvs co" from the DDP CVS (see harden-doc for example,
> > or the java-common package)
Javier, I have resentment. If documentation is very young and immature,
this may be an option. But this beat the spirit of Debian as a binary
distribution.
> I don't agree here. In the .deb we probably only provide HTML, PDF and
> palin text. Users need the source to generate other formats.
Ardo, I agree. Question is PDF or PS? I vote for PDF. Encoding is
another question. UTF-8? This is very tricky for Japanese and I do not
even understand it :(
> > - (if the layout for languages in the DDP CVS is homogeneus -sp?- this
> > can easily be done) each documentation package creates one package for
> > every language that the documentation is available in.
> >
> > - the packages publishes the documentation using standard doc-base/dhelp
> > stuff
>
> Please, only support doc-base. dhelp should learn to use doc-base.
Yes sir. I think I have to learn this. :)
> > - documentation is always available under /usr/share/doc/package_name
> > /usr/share/doc/package_name-XX (XX is the iso reference for a given
> > language) contains a symlink to the documentation there. Translations
> > (I assume English is *always* the reference language, per policy)
> > are under /usr/share/doc/package_name/XX
>
> I don't see why English should be treated different than any other language
> or locale. Hence, for _each_ locale there will be symlink to the appropriate
> directory. Also, you need XX_YY to handle all currently supported locales,
> e.g. pt_PT and pt_BR.
In principle, I agree. Postinst script shoud create
/usr/share/doc/package_name/ and install document there.
While package_name-XX should be the name for each language which install
administratative documents /usr/share/doc/package_name-XX and install
real documentation content under /usr/share/doc/package_name/XX.
Something like this will be nice.
But pt_PT and pt_BR issues, I wonder:
en_GB and en_US ?
fr_FR and fr_CA ?
Isn't that too much. Besides, I never saw pt_PT used for documentation
yet.
As I mentioned in other thread, creating and converting "date" under
each locale are problematic for unexperienced like me.
--
~\^o^/~~~ ~\^.^/~~~ ~\^*^/~~~ ~\^_^/~~~ ~\^+^/~~~ ~\^:^/~~~ ~\^v^/~~~ +++++
Osamu Aoki @ Cupertino CA USA
See "User's Guide": http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/users-guide/
See "Debian reference": http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/reference/
"Debian reference" Project at: http://qref.sf.net
I welcome your constructive criticisms and corrections.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-doc-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: