Re: [Scons-dev] New SCons doc toolchain...

Hi, On 26.03.2013 00:50, Dirk Bächle wrote: Hi developers, over the last weeks, I collected together all the work I'd done so far on the rewrite of the documentation toolchain in SCons. It has now reached a state where I think it's ready to get a little more public, so I pushed the current c

Re: [Scons-dev] New SCons doc toolchain...

On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Dirk Bächle wrote: > Hi, > > On 26.03.2013 00:50, Dirk Bächle wrote: > >> Hi developers, >> >> over the last weeks, I collected together all the work I'd done so far on >> the rewrite of the documentation toolchain in SCons. It has now reached a >> state where I t

Re: [Scons-dev] New SCons doc toolchain...

Hi Gary, On 21.04.2013 23:38, Gary Oberbrunner wrote: [...] Hi, Dirk! I just cloned this on my Linux box (Ubuntu 11.10 - also tried 12.04), but running scons bootstrap.py gives errors: scons: *** [design.xml] XMLSyntaxError : Specification mandate value for attribute object, line 1, colum

Re: [Scons-dev] New SCons doc toolchain...

On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Dirk Bächle wrote: > Hi Gary, > > On 21.04.2013 23:38, Gary Oberbrunner wrote: > >> >> [...] >> >> >> Hi, Dirk! >> >> I just cloned this on my Linux box (Ubuntu 11.10 - also tried 12.04), but >> running scons bootstrap.py gives errors: >> >> scons: *** [design.xml

Re: [Scons-dev] New SCons doc toolchain...

Gary, On 22.04.2013 02:21, Gary Oberbrunner wrote: On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Dirk Bächle > wrote: Hi Gary, On 21.04.2013 23 :38, Gary Oberbrunner wrote: [...] Hi, Dirk! I just cloned this on my Linux box (Ubuntu 11.10 - al

Re: [Scons-dev] New SCons doc toolchain...

Dirk, Does the new doc toolchain generate pdf files with tables of contents and indexes? -Bill On Apr 22, 2013, at 2:44 PM, Dirk Bächle wrote: > Gary, > > On 22.04.2013 02:21, Gary Oberbrunner wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Dirk Bächle wrote: >> Hi Gary, >> >> On 21.

Re: [Scons-dev] New SCons doc toolchain...

Works much better now. I re-cloned and installed fop and now it builds. I do get some errors about the bricks SVG file: SEVERE: svg graphic could not be built: file:/home/user/src/scons_doc_toolchain/doc/design/titlepage/SConsBuildBricks_path.svg:0 The URI "file:/home/dirk/workspace/docs/scons/x

Re: [Scons-dev] New SCons doc toolchain...

On Mon, 2013-04-22 at 23:44 +0200, Dirk Bächle wrote: […] > Make sure that you have "fop" and one of the XML Python bindings > installed (lxml or libxml2)...the latter is to be preferred because it > is much faster, but both should work fine now. Uurrr… isn't lxml a wrapper over libxml2 to provi

Re: [Scons-dev] New SCons doc toolchain...

On 23.04.2013 18:12, Russel Winder wrote: On Mon, 2013-04-22 at 23:44 +0200, Dirk Bächle wrote: […] Make sure that you have "fop" and one of the XML Python bindings installed (lxml or libxml2)...the latter is to be preferred because it is much faster, but both should work fine now. Uurrr… isn't

Re: [Scons-dev] New SCons doc toolchain...

On 23.04.2013 02:28, Gary Oberbrunner wrote: Works much better now. I re-cloned and installed fop and now it builds. I do get some errors about the bricks SVG file: SEVERE: svg graphic could not be built: file:/home/user/src/scons_doc_toolchain/doc/design/titlepage/SConsBuildBricks_path.svg:

Re: [Scons-dev] New SCons doc toolchain...

I don't see the bricks errors anymore, good. I'm not sure everything is getting built into build/ however. For instance the *_xi.xml and *_db.xml files are getting created in the doc/man dir. At one point I thought I had changed something and they didn't get rebuilt, which is why I noticed. (Mig

Re: [Scons-dev] New SCons doc toolchain...

Where do we stand on this? The User guide definitely looks a lot prettier with Dirk's system, and it seems to have all the same sections as the old guide (the layout is a bit denser so it comes in at 286 pages rather than 337). The title page font is a bit too big but I'm sure that can be easily

Re: [Scons-dev] New SCons doc toolchain...

On Sat, 2013-04-27 at 22:28 -0400, Gary Oberbrunner wrote: > Where do we stand on this? The User guide definitely looks a lot prettier > with Dirk's system, and it seems to have all the same sections as the old > guide (the layout is a bit denser so it comes in at 286 pages rather than > 337). Th

Re: [Scons-dev] New SCons doc toolchain...

On Tue, 2013-04-23 at 19:21 +0200, Dirk Bächle wrote: > On 23.04.2013 18:12, Russel Winder wrote: […] > > Uurrr… isn't lxml a wrapper over libxml2 to provide the ElementTree API > > (and other things like a validating parser and XPath). > > Yes, that appears to be true for libxml2 (the C library,

Re: [Scons-dev] New SCons doc toolchain...

Hi Russel, thanks a lot for all your comments. I won't go into detail about each one of them, but would like to say a few words in general. There still may be some quirks with fonts or layouts and "fop" is certainly not state of the art for PDF rendering...whatever. To be honest, I don't care

Re: [Scons-dev] New SCons doc toolchain...

On Sun, 2013-04-28 at 11:35 +0200, Dirk Bächle wrote: […] > What I don't want to happen is, that we "do nothing" just because the > fonts don't look pretty enough yet, or some hyphenations are still wrong. > I'd rather go into a possibly wrong direction first and then correct, > instead of not mo

Re: [Scons-dev] New SCons doc toolchain...

On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Russel Winder wrote: > Given the current system is XML based, with xml files and in files > required, the new system is an improvement and should be accepted. > Glad you agree, I feel the same way. This way all the doc uses the same source language and in the sa

Re: [Scons-dev] New SCons doc toolchain...

On 28.04.2013 20:20, Gary Oberbrunner wrote: On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Russel Winder > wrote: Given the current system is XML based, with xml files and in files required, the new system is an improvement and should be accepted. Glad you agree, I f

Re: [Scons-dev] New SCons doc toolchain...

On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Dirk Bächle wrote: > On 28.04.2013 20:20, Gary Oberbrunner wrote: > > > On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Russel Winder wrote: > >> Given the current system is XML based, with xml files and in files >> required, the new system is an improvement and should be acce

Re: [Scons-dev] New SCons doc toolchain...

On 29.04.2013 00:38, Gary Oberbrunner wrote: On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Dirk Bächle > wrote: On 28.04.2013 20:20, Gary Oberbrunner wrote: [...] I am ready to prepare a pull request any time...if we all agree that the current status of my exp

Re: [Scons-dev] New SCons doc toolchain...

All, I see the following when running bootstrap.py SCons import failed. Trying to run from source directory scons: Reading SConscript files ... scons: done reading SConscript files. scons: Building targets ... scons: `.' is up to date. scons: done building targets. SCons import failed. Trying to

Re: [Scons-dev] New SCons doc toolchain...

On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 3:51 PM, William Deegan wrote: > Note that without the proper tools installed the build failed complaining > about scons.1 missing. > Would it be possible to allow bootstrap.py to complete skipping the parts > which won't build due to missing tools? > This is pretty import

Re: [Scons-dev] New SCons doc toolchain...

Hi Bill, On 29.04.2013 21:51, William Deegan wrote: All, I see the following when running bootstrap.py SCons import failed. Trying to run from source directory scons: Reading SConscript files ... scons: done reading SConscript files. scons: Building targets ... scons: `.' is up to date. scons:

Re: [Scons-dev] New SCons doc toolchain...

On 29.04.2013 21:51, William Deegan wrote: All, I see the following when running bootstrap.py [...] Also I had to install the following (on ubuntu 10.04) sudo apt-get install python-libxml2 python-libxslt1 python-epydoc fop python2.6-dev Note that without the proper tools installed the b

Re: [Scons-dev] New SCons doc toolchain...

Dirk, Should you also add "fop" or the other alternative to the scons_dev_master? Thanks, Bill On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Dirk Bächle wrote: > On 29.04.2013 21:51, William Deegan wrote: > > All, > > I see the following when running bootstrap.py > > [...] > > > Also I had to install

Re: [Scons-dev] New SCons doc toolchain...

On 01.05.2013 21:30, Bill Deegan wrote: Dirk, Should you also add "fop" or the other alternative to the scons_dev_master? Thanks, Bill Isn't it in the list on your side? I can see it in my revision...and on the bitbucket commit. The "xep" renderer is a commercial one, but there is a free

Re: [Scons-dev] New SCons doc toolchain...

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 00:50:07 +0100 Dirk Bächle wrote: > Hi developers, >- All processing is based on plain Python scripts, the only > additional dependencies are either lxml or libxml2. > (for creating the PDF files, you also need to have a renderer > like fop, xep or jw installed) >

Re: [Scons-dev] New SCons doc toolchain...

Hi Gour, On 09.05.2013 10:33, Gour wrote: On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 00:50:07 +0100 Dirk Bächle wrote: [...] I settled to use SCons for my PyQt project and was reading the User Manual yesterday and e.g. found that the email addresses listed are wrong (e.g. us...@scons.tigris.org) which led me to ch

Re: [Scons-dev] New SCons doc toolchain...

On Thu, 09 May 2013 12:14:29 +0200 Dirk Bächle wrote: Hello Dirk, > However, I'd like you to have a short look over > the discussion at > >http://www.scons.org/wiki/DeveloperGuide/Documentation > > and > >http://www.scons.org/wiki/DeveloperGuide/Documentation/Discussion > > , respect

Re: [Scons-dev] New SCons doc toolchain...

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Gour wrote: > > When SCons project moved from SVN to Mercurial (personally I tried/used > everything from darcs, bzr, hg, mtn, fossil and now settled on Git, > although I > prefer Bitbucekt over Github), I believe that one of the rationale is hope > to > increase c

Re: [Scons-dev] New SCons doc toolchain...

On Thu, 9 May 2013 17:06:35 -0400 Gary Oberbrunner wrote: > I see this as an iterative process. The first thing was to > rationalize the tool chain and use one tool for everything. Formerly > we had a hodgepodge of stuff. Now that it's decently organized, > there's of course more work to be do

Re: [Scons-dev] New SCons doc toolchain...

Hello Gour, On 09.05.2013 22:53, Gour wrote: On Thu, 09 May 2013 12:14:29 +0200 Dirk Bächle wrote: [...] If it's good-enough for Python project docs itself, I believe it should be for SCons as well. that's okay...but to make me believe this as well, you (or someone else) has to deliver act

Re: [Scons-dev] New SCons doc toolchain...

In SCons as with all opensource.. words are ok, but functional tested, documented pull requests are rare and priceless! -Bill On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Dirk Bächle wrote: > Hello Gour, > > > On 09.05.2013 22:53, Gour wrote: > >> On Thu, 09 May 2013 12:14:29 +0200 >> Dirk Bächle wrote: >

Re: [Scons-dev] New SCons doc toolchain...

On Thu, 9 May 2013 15:56:38 -0700 Bill Deegan wrote: > In SCons as with all opensource.. words are ok, but functional tested, > documented pull requests are rare and priceless! Ohh, now I'm happy for not submitted proposal for python-3 support. :-) Sincerely, Gour -- One must deliver himself

Re: [Scons-dev] New SCons doc toolchain...

On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 23:53 +0200, Gour wrote: […] > Once again, kudos to Dirk for his work on the doc toolchain which is often > thankless job. […] Hear, hear. Whilst I am a hater of humans having to read and write XML, even DocBook/XML, rationalizing the SCons use of DocBook/XML is a good step

Re: [Scons-dev] New SCons doc toolchain...

On Fri, 10 May 2013 09:10:44 +0100 Russel Winder wrote: > On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 23:53 +0200, Gour wrote: > […] > > Once again, kudos to Dirk for his work on the doc toolchain which > > is often thankless job. > […] > > Hear, hear. > > Whilst I am a hater of humans having to read and write XML,

Re: [Scons-dev] New SCons doc toolchain...

On Thu, 09 May 2013 23:55:02 +0200 Dirk Bächle wrote: > that's okay...but to make me believe this as well, you (or someone > else) has to deliver actual results. ;) > As I stated before in this thread, as long as the same functionality > is kept regarding the automatic creation of examples (and

Re: [Scons-dev] New SCons doc toolchain...

On 10.05.2013 11:15, Gour wrote: On Thu, 09 May 2013 23:55:02 +0200 Dirk Bächle wrote: that's okay...but to make me believe this as well, you (or someone else) has to deliver actual results. ;) [...] Being a little lazy and more tight with the time atm, here I provide some reference which doe

Re: [Scons-dev] New SCons doc toolchain...

On Fri, 10 May 2013 18:49:58 +0200 Dirk Bächle wrote: > Which raises the question whether you selected this signature on > purpose, or it's a pure coincidence. ;) I swear it's pure coincidence generated by: 'gita fortune', but, of course, nothing happens by accident. ;) Sincerely, Gour --

Re: [Scons-dev] New SCons doc toolchain...

On Thursday, May 09, 2013 10:53:03 PM Gour wrote: > Docbook was on my testing plate several years ago and it seems to me that it > does not changed a lot - it's still involves quite complicated toolchain, > it's not easy for author writers and I'd never replace LaTeX with e.g. FOP. Well, if you

Re: [Scons-dev] New SCons doc toolchain...

On Sat, 11 May 2013 19:32:43 -0500 "Mark A. Flacy" wrote: > Well, if you never intend to treat your documents as data, then I > could see why you would think that. Or if you don't ever want to > decouple presentation from content. The point is that I believe reST provides enough semantic to han