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@xxxxxxxxxx Quality Engineering -- Red Hat, Inc. ========================================== -- fedora-docs-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list
