On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 09:27 -0500, Tommy Reynolds wrote: > Uttered "Paul W. Frields" <stickster@xxxxxxxxx>, 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/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-docs-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list
