Test of Docs Packaging

[Paul W. Frields]

On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 09:27 -0500, Tommy Reynolds wrote:
> Uttered "Paul W. Frields" <stickster at gmail.com>, 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/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-docs-list/attachments/20051014/2ada9dd1/attachment.sig>