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

Bug#773656: I would like to resume packaging DAPS


I want to switch from LaTeX to DocBook for publishing the manuals of my software
(see footer). I tried publican first. I somehow found uncomfortable with it (see
below) and then started searching for an alternative. I found DAPS.

I have setup the DocBook-based build of my manuals with DAPS in no time.

In setting-up the DAPS environment from source, I must say that it was really
easy and remarkably documented. I had some questions which got answered promptly
and nicely by the upstream crew.

As for the publican experience, this is what I have to report:

I tried to access the git repos of publican at the moment and

https://sourceware.org/gerrit/gitweb?p=publican.git is not available.

I tried to access the page

Tars and SRPMs: https://fedorahosted.org/releases/p/u/publican/

and I got this page about the site being retired:


I tried to access the mailing list and I found that the last messages were from
march 2018.

I think that DocBook-based authoring/publishing is becoming more and more
mainstream, even in non-technical writings. We need some competition in Debian
inside the DocBook/XML publishing arena.

I have written to Sasha, but got not answer yet (it was not long ago, maybe he
is still subscribed to this bug). When speaking with upstream, they told me they
were glad that DAPS could be eventually served in Debian. They did not mention others'
efforts on this subject, so I guess that they think the work was stalled.

If I have no major concerns I'll go on with packaging and uploading DAPS by
starting from what is already available. Please tell me the concerns you may
have with DAPS.

Finally but foremost, please tell me if you would like to resume packaging along
with me. I would like DAPS to be as soon as possible in Debian for my needs and
potentially for others'.


⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀  Filippo Rusconi, PhD
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁   Scientist at CNRS
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀   Debian Developer
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀  http://msxpertsuite.org

Reply to: