On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 09:27 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 09:47:40AM -0400, Adam C Powell IV a écrit : > > > > why not just adapt the existing doc-base format, adding a new "BibTeX > > files" field? The description of which citation to use when (canonical > > article(s) for different parts of the package, background theory, > > related stuff) can just go in the doc-base abstract. > > Hello Adam, > > let me rephrase to see if I understood completely. > > Let a package "foo", that contains the program "foo" that was published > by Bar in the Fooomics journal. > > The Debian source package would contain a file named > foo-reference.doc-base in its debian directory. foo-reference.doc-base > would contain something like this: > > Document: foo-reference > Title: Bibliographic information for foo > Section: Bibliography > > Format: BibTeX > @book{foo-debian, > title = "Foo for the masses", > author = "Bar", > publisher = "Foomics journal", > year = "2029" > doi = 3.14159/foo_article > } > > Users would first have to go to /usr/shar/doc-base by themselves, then some > time later we would update doc-base to generate something from the Format: > BibTeX entry, and in a third step we would implement a central bibliography > that can be easily used by reference managers and LaTeX articles. > > Does it reflect your proposition ?
That's pretty much it, though I figured it would point to one or more separate .bib files instead of having the entry inside the doc-base file. It seems like it has the best of both worlds: use current files and infrastructure, but allow expansion to a centralized citation list as soon as squeeze. What do you think? -Adam -- GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6 Engineering consulting with open source tools http://www.opennovation.com/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part