Re: working on Debian FAQ for shipping with lenny ...
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 11:14:33PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 11:21:39AM +0200, Jens Seidel wrote:
> > > Could you please tell me which languages are supported with
> > > debiandoc, but not with DocBook XML? And with which toolchain?
> But PS/PDF may break for Korean/Japanese/... many UTF-8. I do not know
> how to fix LaTeX customization.
As far as I know it should work. There was indeed short time ago a
problem for one of the DDP documents and I was able to reduce it to
an incompatibility of two LaTeX macros. The bug is still pending
(#469305) and affects dselect-beginner.
Are there other well known failures?
> > The repository-howto document (which uses XML as well) was also once
> > affected by build problems and the output contained garbage. IIRC I
> > found a partial workaround in the past. See the log for details.
> I will look it to find how to build XML for new debian-reference.
Please compare also with other DDP projects to use the best as template.
Some build chains are a real nightmare :-)
> > I think there are also many languages which are supported by LaTeX but
> > not plain TeX which is used by at least one of the toolchains.
> I do not understand here. I thought LaTeX uses plain TeX as backend. It
> is just macro package. Am I missing something...
Right. So you can (theoretically) use any TeX macro in a TeX and LaTeX
document. A LaTeX macro (and I think many language support tools are
written for LaTeX) will not work with plain TeX.
It's really a while ago that I did something in this domain and my LaTeX
skills are now partely more than 10 years old. Things change ...
I at least remember that Frans Pop failed to create PDF files for the
installer manual at least for some languages. Indeed, the PDF list
on http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/installmanual is much shorter
as the HTML list. I once looked into "fop" but I didn't understand it,
it was too complicated.
> > I suggest before converting to check the build status of current DDP
> > documents even if the content is outdated. So we could get an impression
> > of the tools.
> Format conversion is too timeconsuming and little gain unless content
> updates are done at the same time. Basically, when updating contents,
> let's covert things to XML/po4a.
po4a is unrelated and can be done independent of it. But if you update
contents you do in general not update the whole file! So it may be
indeed an option to change the format independly (just to be sure that
all fuzzy PO file strings are related to SGML/XML tags only and not also
to content, such a review would be very hard).
On the other side: If the SGML -> XML transition can be done
automatically via script no translation would be outdated as the process
can be done for translations as well. This would be optimal.