On Thu, 2008-10-16 at 21:36 +0200, Manuel Prinz wrote: > Am Donnerstag, den 16.10.2008, 17:41 +0200 schrieb Michael Banck: > > The problem I have with doc-base is that it is underused and not very > > accessible. At least that is my impression of it as somebody who > > doesn't care a lot about it from a packager's POV. I probably should > > care more, though. > > I know lots of long-term Debian users who are not even aware of doc-base > at all... I do share your POV here. Really? But doc-base is so cool! It's yet another Debian invention (predates scrollkeeper by several years) which makes life a ton easier for users, like apt and debconf. > > So anyway, I'd really like to have something usable for users in > > /usr/share/doc/<package> and not just some meta-data stream that's > > marked up reasonably somewhere else. Maybe it's best to have a seperate > > citation.bib and references.bib file with just the bibtex data? > > This is IMHO the solution to go for. Adam's idea is quite good as well, > and as I see it, they're complementary in that we could use doc-base for > now and use the data (better: the .doc-base files) to generate the > citations.bib and references.bib out of those entries via a script. My idea was actually to have the citations.bib and/or references.bib in /usr/share/doc/<package> as you say, and have the .doc-base file include something like: Format: BibTeX Files: /usr/share/doc/<package>/*.bib Is there an advantage to having the BibTeX data right in the .doc-base file? I can't see one, and I think it might confuse .doc-base parsers. So I think we agree about this. Advantages: * It uses (and perhaps reinforces) the doc-base index system, which IMO is one of Debian's under-appreciated strengths. * It's backward-compatible with old versions of debhelper, dhelp/dwww, etc. which will just ignore that section of .doc-base. * There's a user-visible place for .bib files, which is wherever the maintainer feels is the best place for them, we don't need to wait for a script to be available to generate it. * Metadata are in one place, which is the .bib files, not duplicated in .doc-base and .bib files and plain formats and HTML and control, so the maintainer only has to change or update things once. * It doesn't bloat Packages or control. * It's future-expandable, as new versions of dhelp etc. can use the .doc-base and .bib files to generate a whole host of new user- friendly files, from a master .bib file or other reference manager files, to a plain text reference list, to an HTML index with links to the DOIs. * Scrollkeeper might follow Debian's leadership (again) and make use of such metadata. -Adam -- GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6 Engineering consulting with open source tools http://www.opennovation.com/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part