[debiandoc-sgml-devel] Re: DebianDoc-SGML Alioth project up and running

[Jens Seidel]

On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 02:44:31AM +0100, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 02:27:03PM -0600, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I've completed the setup of the DebianDoc-SGML project on Alioth.

That's why I CCed debiandoc-sgml-devel.

> Few thoughts on changes:
> 
>  * debiandoc2latexps vs. debiandoc2ps
>  Since we will not be creating groff path etc., I think we shouls
>  replace debiandoc2ps with symlink to debiandoc2latexps.  The same for
>  debiandoc2dvi and debiandoc2pdf.  What do you think.
>  (This should reduce potential bug.)

If debiandoc2{dvi,ps,pdf} have options supported by
debiandoc2latex{dvi,ps,pdf} I agree. Using a wrapper script instead of
symlinks may increase compatibility (windows :-))

>  * bin/template
>  In order to have consistency and better bug tracing, we should generate 
>  all scripts from a single template.
> 
>  I actually created alternative simpler "bin/mkconversions" to
>  streamline this.  This new "bin/mkconversions" reduces abstruction
>  layers when reading template file:
> 
>   now: template -> variable names references (mkconversions) -> sed script
>   new: template with section marked with format -> sed script
> 
>  Now @@@...@@@ is like for sections active only under latex, latexdvi,
>  latexps, and latexpdf:
>  
>  @@@start-latex-latexdvi-latexps-latexpdf-active@@@
>          -s <script>      apply script on latex generated file
>  @@@end-latex-latexdvi-latexps-latexpdf-active@@@
> 
>  Is this acceptable change?

It is (under the assumption, that template is still readable).
Is the option -s necessary for debiandoc2latex (you suggested to move this
functionality to debiandoc2latex but using a common template this should
not be necessary, right)?

PS: Osamu, please subscribe to the mailing lists.

Jens