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

[Osamu Aoki]

Hi,

On Sun, Feb 13, 2005 at 01:52:50AM +0100, Jens Seidel wrote:
> 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 :-))

Let me double check.

> >  * 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).

Actually it will be more like C program with many # ifdef ... || ... |||
It is quite readable and I will compare code in generated form to give
smooth transition.

I realize that with small change to debiandoc2info we may add
debiandoc2xml since texinfo can be converted to docbook-xml.  (makeinfo)

Anyway, let's apply other updates first.

> 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)?

I will double check.  If they were different, they should have been bug.

> PS: Osamu, please subscribe to the mailing lists.

Yes done.  I was working on different thing tonight.  Nothing was done.