Re: Bug#612996: apt-doc: Please convert SGML to DocBook XML
Hi!
Resending a trimmed down version of the initial mail to the list as
it seems it didn't go through due to the size? Please see the bug
report for the attached patches, or I could resend them as an actual
patch series if you want, or something else.
On Sat, 2014-07-05 at 01:33:48 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-02-12 at 15:01:48 +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > Package: apt-doc
> > Version: 0.8.10.3
> > Severity: wishlist
> > User: debian-doc@lists.debian.org
> > Usertags: docbook-xml-transition
>
> > Please consider to convert document to DocBook XML using debiandoc2dbk
> > command in the upcoming debiandoc-sgml package in wheezy.
> >
> > I think working on this later after the release of Debian 6.0.2 or so will be
> > good idea. No rush.
>
> > New debiandoc-sgml have debiandoc2dbk command and helper scripts.
> > Please see the following:
> > http://wiki.debian.org/DocbookXmlTransition
>
> While adding the LFS support, I found I needed to install
> debiandoc-sgml, which bothered me a bit, so I embarked myself into a
> yak shaving session, to convert the docs to docbook-xml, and while
> doing so and when needing to check and unfuzzy the po files, ended up
> cleaning them up and fixing various issues, found with «i18nspector»
> and «msgfmt --check --statistics».
>
> Here's a patch series. Unfortunately as mentioned on the other bug
> report, I just found out there's a new release in experimental, which
> seems to conflict with the changes here. I can reroll the series
> rebased onto that. I've also based some stuff from Osamu's work in
> the maint-guide, which might need some attribution in the patches.
>
> I've tried to mimic the output as much as possible, but there are
> still some differences, I do think the new output looks better
> though. The original source indentation and the folding comments got
> lost in the conversion, I could try to restore those if you'd want.
> I also unfuzzied all translations, except for very few new strings.
>
> And I found some problems in the original docbook text, but I'll
> probably send a new bug report with patches once these have been
> merged in, to avoid more possible conflicts.
Thanks,
Guillem
Reply to: