On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 01:36:51PM -0400, John J. McDonough wrote: > > From: "Paul Frields" <stickster@xxxxxxxxx> >> Hi guys, >> >> (1) This sort of call for review/help should be on the >> fedora-docs-list where more people can help. It's open source! > > > Point taken. I still need to get used to this. This seemed so grody I > didn't think the larger goup would care, but then again, being selfish, I > am always interested in learning more, and the more eyes, the more chances > i have to learn! My main motivation in sharing this was so that I wasn't > the only person who knew what I was up to, but there is no reason the > three of you have to be the only ones. > > On the other hand, this could be a little misleading without some > warnings. The script essentially builds the rpm, and I am the LAST person > anyone should be looking to for advice on building an rpm. In addition, > this is a transition time, and much of what is in there we hope not to > deal with for Fedora 12. Most if this is fedora-docs-utils stuff that we > hope will be Publican, and some of the Publican stuff are things we hope > will be dealt with in Publican, so certainly, nobody should put too much > value on this script. I've been in your shoes many times, so I understand the trepidation! Just rest easily knowing that you've improved transparency, we should all try not to make perfect the enemy of the good, and so on. > On the other hand, it is certainly a treasure trove of ungainly hacks. A kindred soul! :-D > I made the rpm for RC in two steps, so in the latest version, the Publican > parts are commented out. I have since pushed the I18n.xml that has the > offending paragraph commented out, so I should be able to run the script > from start to finish, but haven't actually done that yet. After we get > the RC done, I intend to do that so that when any zero day issues are > swatted, we can just run the script to make the rpm. > >> (2) Is help still needed? > > The package that went to RC has the offending paragraph commented out. We > still have absolutely no clue what is going on there. We need someone a > lot more knowledgable about Publican (hint, hint) to help sort it out. As > I said, I pushed the version of I18n.xml that has the offending paragraph > (and I mean XML paragraph here, from <para> to </para>, it is actually a > table) commented out. Uncommenting it and generating html in any > non-English language should expose the problem. Because of the need to > merge the po's, it might be easier to do this from the srpm than from git. > It will certainly be quicker as the po merge takes some time. Is this the problem that Ruediger just wrestled to ground? The quotation mark issue? -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug -- fedora-docs-list mailing list fedora-docs-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list
