Publican Issues

[Karsten Wade]

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 05:19:33PM +1000, Joshua Wulf wrote:

[snip reasonable use case]

> That's the idea. It doesn't make much sense if you envision Fedora as a  
> RHEL beta test that you scrap each time a new version comes out, but if  
> it's a viable OS that can be deployed and used in a production capacity  
> like that described above, parallel documentation installation will be  
> useful.

I find it to be a reasonable use case.  Personally, I would move the
version number after the word "Fedora", to make it clear it is about the
version of the OS not the version of the document.  Otherwise, the
reason for the implementation makes sense.

In fact, I doubt anyone will argue against the use case.  The issue is
that the use case did not surface until the last few weeks, although
obviously it has been part of the Publican design scheme for some
time.  It is rather late in the Fedora 11 lifecycle to make all of
this work, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.  Just much more
"hurry up" work than should have been done.

Preferably, IMO, Publican makes it an option to include the version
number in the package or document name, for reasons well stated
elsewhere.

- Karsten
-- 
Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener
http://quaid.fedorapeople.org
AD0E0C41
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-docs-list/attachments/20090326/7d1dbb3b/attachment.sig>