On Fri, 2005-05-06 at 10:48 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > On Fri, 2005-05-06 at 10:04 -0400, James Laska wrote: > > On Thu, 2005-05-05 at 16:45 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote: > > > Karsten: Assign task of making docs use common files in ./ instead of > > > ../, in order to work for separate modules per document. > > > > I can see the benefits of going both paths (centralized vs decentralized > > configs). Is there a lot of demand for local xsl customization in the > > fedora-docs/* documents? > > Actually, I don't think there would be that much demand, because it > would be a hindrance to consistency. Karsten, there should be a pretty > easy way to get modules to automatically "include" a checkout of the > common stuff. Yes. What the above task refers to is re-writing the parent XML files to reference ./common instead of ../common, etc. Same for the Makefile. The task is predicated on the idea that we are going to have certain directories included as part of a common checkout, within the body of the module itself. Another way is to have a massive common module that must be checked out and available at ../. I think I prefer to have it all within ./ and just fix the few docs we have. Does this make sense? thx - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, RHCE * Sr. Tech Writer * http://people.redhat.com/kwade/ gpg fingerprint: 2680 DBFD D968 3141 0115 5F1B D992 0E06 AD0E 0C41 Red Hat SELinux Guide http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-4-Manual/selinux-guide/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-docs-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list
