Test of Docs Packaging

[James Laska]

On Fri, 2005-10-14 at 12:58 -0500, Tommy Reynolds wrote:
> I don't envision the tarballs nor the RPM's to be used in the
> authoring process.  I think we want the authors working in the CVS
> arena and use the RPM/tarball as a distribution method for the
> finished goods.  Read that as "end-user".
> 
Of course, what I meant was that once you package (tarball or rpm) the
document up, non of those entity or xml includes that reference
"../docs-common/" will work anymore will they?  That isn't entirely
true, as once the doc lands in /usr/share/fedora/doc/*, and
fedora-doc-common.rpm is installed, the links will resolve again.

Unfortunately, there is the interim phase where you must build the
package.  When that process is unfolding
(in /usr/src/redhat/BUILD/$docbase-$lang), the "../docs-common/"
directory structure will not map correctly.  Does that makes sense?

> However, I like the idea of the RPM/tarball packaging process to
> include the CSS and stylesheet images in the fedora-doc-common RPM.
> Do you or Paul want to do the surgery?  We already browse the DOM for
> info... 

I agree, but it seems like a similar issue as the ../docs-common stuff.
Reference other files using an absolute or relative path.  I'm still not
clear on which solution makes the most sense.  But when moving docs in
and out of CVS, into rpms, into tarballs, into build-roots ... it is
starting to seem like absolute file paths are the way to go.  This isn't
such a bad thing if we just require authors to install fedora-doc-common
when authoring.  

Thanks,
James 

-- 
==========================================
 James Laska         -- jlaska at redhat.com
 Quality Engineering -- Red Hat, Inc.
==========================================