On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 04:41:45PM -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote: > My idea was actually to have the citations.bib and/or references.bib > in /usr/share/doc/<package> as you say, and have the .doc-base file > include something like: > > Format: BibTeX > Files: /usr/share/doc/<package>/*.bib
Isn't this going to need changes to doc-base and/or dhelp, or do they understand the above already? > Is there an advantage to having the BibTeX data right in the .doc-base > file? I can't see one, and I think it might confuse .doc-base parsers. Ok. > So I think we agree about this. Advantages: > * It uses (and perhaps reinforces) the doc-base index system, > which IMO is one of Debian's under-appreciated strengths. > * It's backward-compatible with old versions of debhelper, > dhelp/dwww, etc. which will just ignore that section > of .doc-base. > * There's a user-visible place for .bib files, which is wherever > the maintainer feels is the best place for them, we don't need > to wait for a script to be available to generate it. > * Metadata are in one place, which is the .bib files, not > duplicated in .doc-base and .bib files and plain formats and > HTML and control, so the maintainer only has to change or update > things once. > * It doesn't bloat Packages or control. > * It's future-expandable, as new versions of dhelp etc. can use > the .doc-base and .bib files to generate a whole host of new > user- friendly files, from a master .bib file or other reference > manager files, to a plain text reference list, to an HTML index > with links to the DOIs. > * Scrollkeeper might follow Debian's leadership (again) and make > use of such metadata. While I think this doc-base integration is fine and nice, I still think having the data in free-form in addition is worthwhile. Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]