On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 09:20:39PM -0600, Adam DiCarlo wrote:
> > > > > If in the DDP CVS area, should it be packaged as well? I think it will
> > > > > need to be...
> > > >
> > > > It can be packaged from there too, I don't see how that would necessarily
> > > > impede the packaging process.
> > >
> > > No, it's just more work to be done is all....
> >
> > Is it packaged anywhere now?
>
> Yes, install-doc.
>
> > (install-doc perhaps? Last I checked, install-doc was entirely broken. :)
>
> Broken how? I don't see any serious bugs on that pkg. Doesn't seem
> broken to me.
That's because it's marked pending so the BTS index sorts it below: the
bug is #155374.
> > > In fact, there are even deeper issues. Are we happy with the way
> > > we're using SGML conditional inclusion for porter stuff? Aren't we
> > > rather annoyed with the difficulty in validating that and the
> > > complexity it presents to authors? Should we move to another means of
> > > marking up arch-specific sections? If we were using DocBook, we could
> > > use (pretty naturally) the 'arch' attribute on <para>, <phrase>, and
> > > <section>, and then handle the presentation issues (should we have one
> > > manual with arch-specific stuff simply styled/presented in a certain
> > > way? or one manual per arch as we have now?) in stylesheets.
> >
> > Yeah, I never did fancy the raw and inflexible nature of the conditionals in
> > ddoc-sgml, it's just dumb at times.
>
> I think we all agree with this. However, I don't wanna couple these
> two issues: making install-doc, release-notes, etc independant, and
> simplifying our approach to multi-arch. These are two completely
> separate issues.
Right. They should first be separated, made to work, tagged as working, and
then converted to whatever else.
> > Then again, it's not going to be a major issue for sarge as we'll likely
> > need less of that stuff because less architectures will be newly released
> > with it. woody was pretty special in this regard. Yay for woody! :) I don't
> > say that often enough...
>
> Um, well, whether an arch is new or not isn't that much of a factor in
> how much arch-dependant stuff is there.
For release notes, that's the uglier part: when you have to do
<![ %not-mips [
<![ %not-mipsel [
<![ %not-ia64 [
<![ %not-hppa [
<![ %not-s390 [
...
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
That's a bit... suboptimal. :)
That's the only thing I was referring to in the above, your further comments
didn't apply. :)
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
