Test of Docs Packaging
Paul W. Frields
stickster at gmail.com
Fri Oct 14 11:40:24 UTC 2005
On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 09:27 -0500, Tommy Reynolds wrote:
> Uttered "Paul W. Frields" <stickster at gmail.com>, spake thus:
>
> > Right. If you update your docs-common module again, you'll get the new
> > stuff to package fedora-doc-common.
>
> Paul,
>
> Two issues have slowly emerged from the recesses of my mind (which is
> always in recess, if you get my drift). Forgive me if they have
> already been discussed:
>
> 1. This all looks quite compilated to leave in Makefile.<whatever>.
> Do you think that packaging this as a shell script would be
> cleaner and easier to maintain? Just use the same
> Makefile.common technology I used for the i18n conversion to
> generate the per-language targets and pickle off the shell script
> from there.
This is an excellent idea. I will try my best. :-)
> 2. The "noarch" RPM's actually contain the source; that's more a
> "src.rpm" or "-devel.noarch.rpm" to me. Don't we need room in the
> namespace for a PDF / HTML flavor of the RPM? Perhaps
> "foo-html.noarch.rpm"?
I wouldn't see a problem with putting HTML in the package and maybe
using "htmlview" as the way to access documentation from the
Applications menu. When PDF is available we can package that as a
namespace "-pdf" as you suggest. Let me work on the HTML part at least
-- that should be simple to implement in time for FC5 (cross fingers)!
--
Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
Fedora Documentation Project: http://fedora.redhat.com/projects/docs/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/docs/attachments/20051014/2ada9dd1/attachment.bin
More information about the docs
mailing list