Hi, thanks again for your insight. I'll now remove the (generated) man files from git, but will leave them inside the tarball. I think that is a workable solution.
Rainer > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:rsyslog- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Satoru SATOH > Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 6:00 PM > To: rsyslog-users > Subject: Re: [rsyslog] [PATCH] man-i18n patches summary > > On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 10:42:03AM +0200, Rainer Gerhards wrote: > > > 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?). > > right. Who needs required tools and files are > > a. developers do git-pull *and* modify man sources > b. translators contribute initial translation or update it > c. others just want ;-) to switch on '--enable-regenerate-man' option > > > 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). > (snip) > > This should be accomplished already, I think. > > I made all related stuff (xml, po, man) in EXTRA_DIST so that these > will > be in the archive generated by 'make dist'. > > > > 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? > > No. There should be no any problems to convert xml files to man pages > but the result *looks* may different. > > Transition from man (roff) to DocBook XML is similar to the transition > from old HTML to XHTML + CSS. The authors/editors/writers have to > concentrate attention at the *logical* structure of the text instead of > its appearance. > > It's typical that many HTML tags to control appearance found in old > HTML > sources and it makes impossible to keep complete same look in new XHTML > + CSS sources. > > - satoru > _______________________________________________ > rsyslog mailing list > http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog _______________________________________________ rsyslog mailing list http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog
