Hi, first of all, many thanks for your continued help. Please let me say that I so far have very little experience with i18n/l10n under linux and so may sometimes misunderstand something ;) Your detailled instructions help much. The rest inline...
Rainer On Fri, 2008-09-05 at 05:31 +0900, Satoru SATOH wrote: > Hi, > > In my POV, the man pages are now output files and as such no longer > > something that belongs into git. I understand that this has the > > implication that when I remove them from git, everyone who pulls the git > > archive needs to have the proper tools in place to generate the doc. > > Exactly. Addtional requirements are the followings. > > - xslt processor, xsltproc > - xml validator, xmllint > - properly configured xml catalog or internet access > - docbook xml dtd (local or remote) > - docbook xsl stylesheet for docbook-to-man transformation (local or > remote) > - xml2po in gnome-doc-utils (optional; must for translators) > > I thought that not all of developers have such system and so that this > should be avoided. This is why I disabled man-regeneration process by > default. I agree that this may be a problem. However, I don't think it is a very serious one. I myself have contributed to some projects where I could not build the documentation. This did not cause any trouble to me while working at the program sources. Of course, if I would like to create a full tarball, I need to have everything in place. But only few actually needs this (am I right here?). In contrast, the tarball must include the generated mans, as the average user can not be expected to have the tools at hand (while we still expect him to have everything at hand necessary to compile the program sources). So I would remove the files from git, but leave them within the distribution source tarball. > > However, is this really a problem? AFAIK other projects have similar > > demands. So I would prefer to remove the man pages themselves from git > > (but of course not from autotools config files, so that they be still > > present in a release tarball). > > > > Does this sound reasonable? Any objections (from anyone)? > > One thing i have to mention. > > Actually, man files generated from docbook xml files are slightly > different from original man files ATM. These need some refactoring. Could you please elaborate a bit on this? Does that mean that the generated man files (after doing a "make") can not be immediately be used and need some kind of (manual?) post-processing? > > If it's not a matter, it would be ok. > > > I also have not yet fully understood the translation workflow. If > > the ./ja subdirectory is copied, doesn't it (soon) contain the Japanese > > version? If so, shouldn't any other subdirectory be copied (e.g. an ./en > > be created with the English source doc, which I maintain)? > > It is a little much complicated than that. Here are example steps for > german (de) man pages. thanks for the detailed instructions, I'll first do a lab to get some experience first (plus read a bit more in various docs) and post questions when/if they come up. _______________________________________________ rsyslog mailing list http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog
