On Mon, May 27, 2002 at 10:00:01AM -0500, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote:
>
> Ok, this might work. But it also forces me to keep in sync for any changes
> made to the sources in the CVS repository. Given the upcoming comnplete
> overhaul I don't think I want anybody else to work on it until things have
> settled down in a releasable form.
Well. I'm talking long-time here, I know that now it's going to be
completely changed :)
(...)
> So, you plan to put all the manual pages, all the Info pages, etc., etc., ...
> under the DDP? That's in no way feasible nor desirable. Let alone that you
> would get that policy approved by the project.
Ok. Let's not take this to the extreme. You have made your point,
and I respect it. However maybe, just for the sake of translations, you
could sync from time to time to the DDP CVS?
(...)
>
> Yep, and I was definitely not impressed,
Sorry to hear that.
>
> But DebianDoc-SGML is not about the Debian way. It's just an SGML DTD and
> associated tools that have been developed out of a dissatisfaction for the
> LinuxDoc (or whatever it was called back then) stuff. It can (and is) used
> for other docs than just the Debian documentation. Let's say the DDP moves
> to DocBook-XML. Do you plan to maintain the associated documentation in the
> DDP? I don't think so.
>
Why not? Whatever non-binary format the documentation is we can
use the CVS to maintain it, make package versions and publish it in the
web server. I don't see your point here. Also note that, IMHO, it is
important for the Debiandoc document to be available in the DDP. Hopefully
I'm not pushing it too far :)
Regards
Javi
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
