Putting lenny release notes on www ASAP?

On 2008-11-21 23:24, Simon Paillard wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 08:52:05AM +0100, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
> > Furthermore, two (easy) backports are needed, if we build on
> > etch: dblatex and xmlroff from lenny.
>
> Will request it to DSA.

Luk uploaded the two backports some hours ago.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-doc-REQUEST.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org

On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 11:24:51PM +0100, Simon Paillard wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 08:52:05AM +0100, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
> > Currently the release notes are here:
> > svn://svn.debian.org/svn/ddp/manuals/branches/release-notes/lenny
> > Shall we move them to
> > svn://svn.debian.org/svn/ddp/manuals/trunk/release-notes
> > first?
>
> No need, Matt initiated the local copy with
> branches/releases-notes/lenny.

Right. Nevertheless one checks normally only the trunk version out. I think
it would be a good idea to switch to trunk as soon as working on a new
release starts. This simplifies contribution a lot.

A few further notes:
* Currently the suffix .dbk is used for DocBook/XML files. Is this a usual
one? Other documents I know use .xml which I prefer. (That's only a minor
issue but once the code is moved to trunk one can fix this as well.)
* Currently multiple PO files are used. One for each English document.
I think a single PO file is much preffered.
* In my older build I still found the strange filename en/release-notes..pdf.
Nobody noticed it yet? This will clearly make trouble once we link to this
file from the website. Maybe it is accessible via language code "" or ".".

PS: Thanks for the great work on the Release Notes!

Jens


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-doc-REQUEST.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org

On 2008-11-22 11:04, Jens Seidel wrote:
> Right. Nevertheless one checks normally only the trunk version out. I think
> it would be a good idea to switch to trunk as soon as working on a new
> release starts. This simplifies contribution a lot.

Yes, I agree. The branch was meant temporarily.

> * Currently the suffix .dbk is used for DocBook/XML files. Is this a usual
> one? Other documents I know use .xml which I prefer. (That's only a minor
> issue but once the code is moved to trunk one can fix this as well.)

I very strongly prefer .dbk over .xml. XML is very generic
(everything is XML nowadays, right? gnumeric, dia, abiword, ...)
E.g. I have configured my Emacs nxml-mode to automatically use
the DocBook RNG schema for .dbk files. I can accept other
extensions (.docbook or whatever you like, but please not a
generic one like .xml).

> * Currently multiple PO files are used. One for each English document.
> I think a single PO file is much preffered.

OK, I have to check, how to handle this. Currently, it makes the
build process a little bit easier (and more aligned with the
languages, where po is not used on request of the translators)
and it allows translators to easily share their work without
having to merge later. But we can change this, if you prefer.

> * In my older build I still found the strange filename en/release-notes..pdf.
> Nobody noticed it yet? This will clearly make trouble once we link to this
> file from the website. Maybe it is accessible via language code "" or ".".

This happens, if the "architecture" variable is not set during
the make run. I will change the Makefile, that this does not
happen anymore. Sorry for the inconvenience.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-doc-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org

On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 11:55:48AM +0100, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
> On 2008-11-22 11:04, Jens Seidel wrote:
> > Right. Nevertheless one checks normally only the trunk version out. I think
> > it would be a good idea to switch to trunk as soon as working on a new
> > release starts. This simplifies contribution a lot.
>
> Yes, I agree. The branch was meant temporarily.

The current stable version can later be moved to a branch to save it's state.

> > * Currently the suffix .dbk is used for DocBook/XML files. Is this a usual
> > one? Other documents I know use .xml which I prefer. (That's only a minor
> > issue but once the code is moved to trunk one can fix this as well.)
>
> I very strongly prefer .dbk over .xml. XML is very generic
> (everything is XML nowadays, right? gnumeric, dia, abiword, ...)

OK.

> > * Currently multiple PO files are used. One for each English document.

s/document/file/

> > I think a single PO file is much preffered.
>
> OK, I have to check, how to handle this. Currently, it makes the
> build process a little bit easier (and more aligned with the
> languages, where po is not used on request of the translators)

Trust me that a single PO file for each language is not more difficult.
The opposite is true: Since two different files could share strings they
need currently to be translated multiple times.

> and it allows translators to easily share their work without
> having to merge later.

Partly. How to share 5 files with 10 translators

> But we can change this, if you prefer.

If other people do not agree there is no need to change it. But dealing with
a single file is just easier.

> > * In my older build I still found the strange filename en/release-notes..pdf.
> > Nobody noticed it yet? This will clearly make trouble once we link to this
> > file from the website. Maybe it is accessible via language code "" or ".".
>
> This happens, if the "architecture" variable is not set during
> the make run. I will change the Makefile, that this does not
> happen anymore. Sorry for the inconvenience.

The old Makefile displayed an error in this case ...

Jens


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-doc-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org

On 2008-11-22 16:55, Jens Seidel wrote:
> Trust me that a single PO file for each language is not more difficult.
> The opposite is true: Since two different files could share strings they
> need currently to be translated multiple times.

True.

> If other people do not agree there is no need to change it. But dealing with
> a single file is just easier.

Is it OK for you, if we change this post-release? Just to not
confuse the translators in the middle of the process :~)

> The old Makefile displayed an error in this case ...

I hope, that the Makefile is OK now in that respect.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-doc-REQUEST.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org

On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 02:13:10PM +0100, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
> On 2008-11-22 16:55, Jens Seidel wrote:
> > Trust me that a single PO file for each language is not more difficult.
> > The opposite is true: Since two different files could share strings they
> > need currently to be translated multiple times.
>
> True.
>
> > If other people do not agree there is no need to change it. But dealing with
> > a single file is just easier.
>
> Is it OK for you, if we change this post-release? Just to not
> confuse the translators in the middle of the process :~)

It is, of course. It is also just a suggestion because I know that many other
projects do it this way.

It allows you also to rename English DocBook files or to rearrange these without
bothering PO based translations.

Jens


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-doc-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org

On 2008-11-23 16:28, Jens Seidel wrote:
> It is, of course. It is also just a suggestion because I know that many other
> projects do it this way.

OK, please remind me post-lenny :~)


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-doc-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org