If anyone would like to try a test install of the draft release notes (English only), a test RPM can be found at
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2062978
Note that this is called "release-notes" rather than "fedora-release-notes" so it will not overwrite your existing release notes and can be safely removed. The beta release notes will appear under System -> Documentation on your menu.
For the terminally curious, yes the specfile is a little limited on comments. The file sent to beta will be complete. This one was automatically produced.
--McD
Hi John,
Looks like this needs to:
Requires: /usr/bin/htmlview
That command is now provided by the xdg-utils package in Fedora 13.
Paul
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Nathan Thomas nathan.thomas@peacenik.co.uk wrote:
Works great here! The creation of a link in the Xfce Menu also works.
Nathan
On 19/03/10 14:02, John J. McDonough wrote:
If anyone would like to try a test install of the draft release notes (English only), a test RPM can be found at
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2062978
Note that this is called "release-notes" rather than "fedora-release-notes" so it will not overwrite your existing release notes and can be safely removed. The beta release notes will appear under System -> Documentation on your menu.
For the terminally curious, yes the specfile is a little limited on comments. The file sent to beta will be complete. This one was automatically produced.
--McD
-- docs mailing list docs@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/docs
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 09:24:24PM -0400, Paul Frields wrote:
Hi John,
Looks like this needs to:
Requires: /usr/bin/htmlview
That command is now provided by the xdg-utils package in Fedora 13.
By the way, is there any munging we still have to do with the .spec file that Publican produces, to get things into Fedora? Are there any lingering problems with that munging that could still use some help? I'll pledge some time to it if needed.
On Mon, 2010-03-22 at 12:15 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 09:24:24PM -0400, Paul Frields wrote:
Hi John,
Looks like this needs to:
Requires: /usr/bin/htmlview
That command is now provided by the xdg-utils package in Fedora 13.
I thought that was provided by default. Thanks for the heads-up.
By the way, is there any munging we still have to do with the .spec file that Publican produces, to get things into Fedora? Are there any lingering problems with that munging that could still use some help? I'll pledge some time to it if needed.
The Publican-produced rpm is so far away from what we need, and I got so little support for fixing it from the Publican crew, that I took to writing code to produce a workable RPM.
I shouldn't be too harsh on the Publican folks. They did give me the clue I needed to make it work, but apparently languages are handled quite a bit differently in RHEL than in Fedora, so we never got on the same page.
Meanwhile, within Docs we have been having some discussion about how we may want to change our delivery. To an extent, we are dragging our feet a bit to see what Zikula can bring to the table, but we are hopeful that the new langpacks along with Zikula might lead to a more sane solution.
Meanwhile, we have a program that packages Publican docs so it is a no-brainer to build the RPM. It's not so bright about the revision history, but since it is temporary, it doesn't seem to be worthwhile to put too much effort there. However, after the F13 beta RPM is out the door I would be happy to entertain requests from the guide owners.
All of that, along with my focus on release notes which are still packaged along with About Fedora, and hence is something of an outlier, meant that I didn't push back very hard on the Publican team since we don't know what we will do in the longer term.
--McD
On 03/23/2010 09:23 AM, John J. McDonough wrote:
Meanwhile, within Docs we have been having some discussion about how we may want to change our delivery. To an extent, we are dragging our feet a bit to see what Zikula can bring to the table, but we are hopeful that the new langpacks along with Zikula might lead to a more sane solution.
On the subject of Zikula --
As another option, Publican 2.0 (due soon) has a web publishing component built into it. This might prove easy and practical for d.fp.o; I'm just not sure what infra changes we would need to make it fly (but it does away with the CVS madness...)
At the moment, the only thing I can point us to externally is Jeff's own fedorapeople page: http://jfearn.fedorapeople.org -- note the Publican User Guide in the left-hand pane.
Unfortunately, Jeff's page only hosts a single doc in a single language so far, so it doesn't really show the tech to its full advantage, but you should get the general idea. Note that the javascript menu degrades gracefully to plain text if needed -- which avoids our current "duct taped" menu board that has attracted some criticism.
There's a fuller description of the component in Jeff's post to publican-list here: https://www.redhat.com/archives/publican-list/2010-March/msg00021.html
and on the front page of Jeff's fedorapeople page, linked above ("Creating a Publican WebSite")
I hope to use this tech on my own fedorapeople page when I start putting up test builds of the Install Guide and other docs in the coming weeks.
Cheers
Rudi
On Sun, 2010-03-21 at 21:24 -0400, Paul Frields wrote:
Hi John,
Looks like this needs to:
Requires: /usr/bin/htmlview
I guess I didn't realize I had to specify the full path. Looking at other specs, it seems customary to use
Requires: htmlview
which is already in the spec. Or do I need Requires xdg-utils since in F12 there was an htmlview package.
--McD
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 11:08:28AM -0400, John J. McDonough wrote:
On Sun, 2010-03-21 at 21:24 -0400, Paul Frields wrote:
Hi John,
Looks like this needs to:
Requires: /usr/bin/htmlview
I guess I didn't realize I had to specify the full path. Looking at other specs, it seems customary to use
Requires: htmlview
which is already in the spec. Or do I need Requires xdg-utils since in F12 there was an htmlview package.
Sorry I didn't see this before we talked, John! (I don't sync my mail constantly, so that I can definitively say at some point each time I do email, "I'm done, time to do something else.")
The answer is that "Requires: htmlview" is a *package* level dependency, while "Requires: /usr/bin/htmlview" is a *file* level dependency. Cool that RPM supports this, I don't think it's possible in some other software management systems.
So that means that the first case only works as long as the package name stays the same. The second case works no matter if the binary moves to a differently-named package (which happens F12 -> F13).
On Wed, 2010-03-24 at 20:32 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 11:08:28AM -0400, John J. McDonough wrote:
The answer is that "Requires: htmlview" is a *package* level dependency, while "Requires: /usr/bin/htmlview" is a *file* level dependency. Cool that RPM supports this, I don't think it's possible in some other software management systems.
So that means that the first case only works as long as the package name stays the same. The second case works no matter if the binary moves to a differently-named package (which happens F12 -> F13).
Thanks Paul
I sort of suspected that, but I hadn't realized RPM was so smart! I was also a little spooked by xdg-utils because xdg-open, which Publican uses when generating the .desktop file, doesn't work quite the same as htmlview and can lead to some undesirable results.
--McD
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 10:46:02AM -0400, John J. McDonough wrote:
On Wed, 2010-03-24 at 20:32 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 11:08:28AM -0400, John J. McDonough wrote:
The answer is that "Requires: htmlview" is a *package* level dependency, while "Requires: /usr/bin/htmlview" is a *file* level dependency. Cool that RPM supports this, I don't think it's possible in some other software management systems.
So that means that the first case only works as long as the package name stays the same. The second case works no matter if the binary moves to a differently-named package (which happens F12 -> F13).
Thanks Paul
I sort of suspected that, but I hadn't realized RPM was so smart! I was also a little spooked by xdg-utils because xdg-open, which Publican uses when generating the .desktop file, doesn't work quite the same as htmlview and can lead to some undesirable results.
John,
I hadn't looked too closely at the underneath part of the RPM beyond the content working and opening. Does anything in the RPM actually *use* /usr/bin/htmlview to run anymore? If not, we probably should just switch the requirement to xdg-utils.
On Thu, 2010-03-25 at 11:42 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
I hadn't looked too closely at the underneath part of the RPM beyond the content working and opening. Does anything in the RPM actually *use* /usr/bin/htmlview to run anymore? If not, we probably should just switch the requirement to xdg-utils.
The .desktop file specifically calls out htmlview.
--McD
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 09:25:44AM -0400, John J. McDonough wrote:
On Thu, 2010-03-25 at 11:42 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
I hadn't looked too closely at the underneath part of the RPM beyond the content working and opening. Does anything in the RPM actually *use* /usr/bin/htmlview to run anymore? If not, we probably should just switch the requirement to xdg-utils.
The .desktop file specifically calls out htmlview.
Okey doke, /usr/bin/htmlview is right then.
docs@lists.stg.fedoraproject.org
-
John J. McDonough -
Nathan Thomas -
Paul W. Frields -
Ruediger Landmann