Test of Docs Packaging

[Paul W. Frields]

On Wed, 2005-10-19 at 17:23 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-10-14 at 15:41 -0500, Tommy Reynolds wrote:
> > Could someone (Paul?) please clarify who is supposed to be using
> > what?  I confess to active avoidance of all things GUI, so I may not
> > be clear on the purpose of these RPM's in association with YELP and all
> > that.  Does it do the XML rendering on the fly, or something?  If
> > not, why put XML in the RPM's at all?
> 
> While it is true that Yelp does display XML, the real point is that XML
> is not just for source breakfast anymore.  It is a full-fledged
> distributed meal in its own right.
> 
> Which brings up the point ... we will have identical XML in .src.rpm as
> well as docs .rpms.  Hmmm ...

Same goes for a lot of Perl/Python libraries -- well OK, maybe not XML
in those cases, but you see my point.  Not a big deal IMHO.

This may point to the need for our Makefile.common to provide a use case
for a locally installed fedora-doc-common RPM.  IOW, pointing to (if
it's available, or possibly if nothing else is available, or... some
combination thereof?) /usr/share/fedora/doc/docs-common/* for supporting
stuff with which to build docs "standalone" without CVS.  Does that make
sense?

-- 
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/20051020/227baf9f/attachment.bin