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

Bug#175770: dpkg-dev: dpkg-scansources man page "prog"

On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 12:01:08PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Martin Quinson wrote:
> > I think that putting the documentation along the code is the a very good
> > solution to get developpers documenting their changes.
> The problem here is CVS, which has a broken idea that a commit can not
> span multiple files.
> Also note that we are slowly moving to switching to docbook
> documentation for everything in dpkg, including manpages.

AFAIK, you're moving to DocBook sgml, not xml. At least, that's what you did
put in the cvs...
A long time ago I did ask you to move to xml, to be able to use poxml, but I
tested this tool a bit more, and my experiments leaded me to develop po4a...

> >   We are thinking about other modules, like wml (web meta language),
> >   texinfo, XML, HTML and others.
> gettext for XML already exists, and I would like to use that instead..

You're speaking about poxml, I guess. It has several limitation over po4a.
For example, the way translators can add a section in the translation to
explain who did the translation, and where to repport bugs isn't very
Other point, lists are a real pain to translate with poxml.

And of course, poxml can't handle sgml, and will never ;)

> > So, translating pod documentation is as easy as translating man pages (or
> > even easier), and pod is far simpler to write for programmers, which is
> > another argument for saying that pod documentation is potentially better
> > maintained...
> docbook is just as easy. The whole issue is somewhat moot since all perl
> will disappear from dpkg anyway :)

Yes, but in the meanwhile, you could close this bug by applying the oneliner
patch I provided... But as always, you're the boss here.

Thanks, Mt.

This message has been made up using recycled ideas and language constructs.
No tree has been cut nor animal harmed in process of making it.

Reply to: