On Friday 09 February 2007 01:04, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
> >
> > I noticed this (and since fixed) in my personal render script, but
> > on Quantum the images are not being popluated (due to we don't use
> > a "current" dir any longer), so no images are displayed when viewing
> >
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 02/09/07 13:24 CST:
> But the version control is WRT the XSL Stylesheets package, not the
> LFS/BLFS books. If they changed the images to be twice as big (or twice
> as small), I don't think we would want those to *automatically* go into
> the books.
I think tha
El Viernes, 9 de Febrero de 2007 20:13, Randy McMurchy escribió:
> Either way, I think BLFS and LFS should use similar strategies.
For consistency, yes.
> I like the LFS way. :-)
I'm indifferent, there is no a "proper" ar "better" way and upstream PNG files
hasn't been modifyed from five years
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 02/09/07 12:50 CST:
>
>> I would add "having version control" to that list. Having the images
>> in svn allows us to track the history of the images instead of being
>> tied to some external thing.
>
> The "version control" of the images
Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 02/09/07 12:50 CST:
> I would add "having version control" to that list. Having the images
> in svn allows us to track the history of the images instead of being
> tied to some external thing.
The "version control" of the images is already taken care of in the
X
On 2/9/07, M.Canales.es <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Having the images in SVN have this pros, IMHO:
>
> - Make the sources more auto-contained
> - Avoid setting a Makefile envars and updating the XSL version number in
> stylesheets/pdf/lfs-admon.xsl.
> - Also allow to use customized ima
El Viernes, 9 de Febrero de 2007 03:07, Randy McMurchy escribió:
> That's great, but I'm proposing we don't have them at all in SVN.
> Seems, though, that in the conversation you don't remember, Manuel
> mentioned something why we should continue to carry them in SVN.
> I don't remember what it wa
El Viernes, 9 de Febrero de 2007 08:53, Matthew Burgess escribió:
> I'm not sure I understand this argument, Bruce. Rendering the book is
> already dependent on DocBook, DocBook-XSL (and a specific version at that),
> libxml2, libxslt and Fop, for PDF output. The XSLROOTDIR is overridable on
> t
On Friday 09 February 2007 01:04, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> The easiest way would be to create a trunk/BOOK/images/ directory in
> subversion and populate it with the images. The LFS Makefile right now
> does:
>
> cp $(XSLROOTDIR)/images/*.png $(BASEDIR)/images
>
> But that makes the book dependent o
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote these words on 02/08/07 21:18 CST:
> And, while we are discussing the XML topic, I would like someone to look at
> this file from DIY-linux and tell me if this is a valid BLFS XML setup
> criticism:
>
> http://cvs.diy-linux.org/index.cgi/*checkout*/refbuild/README?re
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 02/08/07 19:04 CST:
>
>> But that makes the book dependent on another package. Larry put the
>> images for BLFS into subversion in May 2004. I never noticed before
>> that LFS did it differently.
>
> Didn't we just have this discussion? O
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 02/08/07 20:33 CST:
> Addressing the issues above:
>
> 1. The five images take up less than 4K. SVN control of *all* the
> content in the book is much more important than an upgrade that may
> happen automatically. If a change is made, I'd like us to do it expl
Relocated from lfs-dev
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 02/08/07 19:58 CST:
>> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>>> 1) We don't have to piggy-back the images along as they are already
>>>available on disk.
>>> 2) The images are updated in our book as they are updated in the XSL
>>
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 02/08/07 19:58 CST:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>> 1) We don't have to piggy-back the images along as they are already
>>available on disk.
>> 2) The images are updated in our book as they are updated in the XSL
>>stylesheets.
>
> Well, I don't recall the conver
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 02/08/07 19:04 CST:
>
>> But that makes the book dependent on another package. Larry put the
>> images for BLFS into subversion in May 2004. I never noticed before
>> that LFS did it differently.
>
> Didn't we just have this discussion? O
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 02/08/07 19:04 CST:
> But that makes the book dependent on another package. Larry put the
> images for BLFS into subversion in May 2004. I never noticed before
> that LFS did it differently.
Didn't we just have this discussion? Or one similar? Seems we did.
Howe
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I noticed this (and since fixed) in my personal render script, but
> on Quantum the images are not being popluated (due to we don't use
> a "current" dir any longer), so no images are displayed when viewing
> the development book on-line.
The easiest way would
Hi all,
I noticed this (and since fixed) in my personal render script, but
on Quantum the images are not being popluated (due to we don't use
a "current" dir any longer), so no images are displayed when viewing
the development book on-line.
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.26] [GNU ld version 2
18 matches
Mail list logo
