On Fri, 7 Mar 2003 20:08:29 +0100 André Malo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Jacek Prucia wrote: > > > Yes, but moving docs stuff outside main httpd-2.0 tree seems to be easy at > > least for official releases. There is nifty release script, that does half > > of the RM work, and it could take care of this (fetching xml's from cvs, > > translating to html/PDF, moving output file to proper locations inside > > httpd-2.0 tree). However, fresh httpd-2.0 checkout would have empty > > docs/manual dir which kinda sucks. > > yes and no. For now we decided to put the translated docs into the CVS, > mostly because the RM cannot control whether the docs stuff is correctly > translated (different languages). Further a simple cvs checkout is > sufficient to keep the docs up to date online. I think we can still do that, however ready-to-use docs wouldn't share the same cvs module as all that xml crowd. [...] > > Yes. But to be honest flood isn't (and won't be in near future) as popular > > as Apache web server. So I don't suspect there will be pressing need for > > translation. > > Let's design it as it could be. That is why (among other things) I'm trying to use what you guys have developed. By using your infrastructure, flood docs can get a lot of nifty features for free. [...] > > httpd-docs/ > > build.sh > > build.cmd > > target/ > > httpd.xml > > flood.xml > > lib/ > > style/ > > common.xsl > > httpd.xsl > > flood.xsl > > httpd-1.3/ > > httpd-2.0/ > > flood/ > > output/ > > yes, this way would be a possibility (but need some more time to figure it > out more specific). I get the feeling, that a smooth transition will require more thinking/work that just designing new structure. I just wasn't really aware of all the issues involved. However, there's no rush -- we can discuss this proposal and move forward where apropriate :) regards, Jacek Prucia --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
