Updated script
Paul W. Frields
stickster at gmail.com
Wed May 13 14:27:59 UTC 2009
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 01:36:51PM -0400, John J. McDonough wrote:
>
> From: "Paul Frields" <stickster at gmail.com>
>> 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
More information about the fedora-docs-list
mailing list