Hi,
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010, Daniel Holbach wrote:
> The general plan looks like this:
> 1. decide on a toolkit
I would highly suggest that you give a try to publican. It's already
available in Ubuntu and I co-maintain it in Debian.
It's docbook based but it generates good looking documentation, an
On Mon, 2010-12-13 at 11:06 +0100, Daniel Holbach wrote:
> I had a look at sphinx and I'm quite happy with it. Not only is it
> used
> by lots of python projects already, but also is it very easy to write
> in
> ReStructured text, and the output looks great too.
Consider formats which support incl
On Mon, 2010-12-13 at 17:15 +0100, Daniel Holbach wrote:
> On 13.12.2010 16:26, Martin Owens wrote:
> > Consider formats which support including svg diagrams directly, we'd
> > like diagrams to be just as translatable as body text and still easy
> > enough to make and maintain.
>
> Good point. I h
On 13.12.2010 16:26, Martin Owens wrote:
> Consider formats which support including svg diagrams directly, we'd
> like diagrams to be just as translatable as body text and still easy
> enough to make and maintain.
Good point. I haven't looked into this yet, but will add it to my list.
Have a grea
On 13.12.2010 12:13, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 13.12.2010 11:06, Daniel Holbach wrote:
>> * Sphinx:
>>- PRO: ReStructured text
>>- PRO: variety of output formats (.html, single .html, pdf, epub,
>> .txt, etc.)
>>- PRO: supports gettext infrastructure
>>- CON: only suppo
On 13.12.2010 11:06, Daniel Holbach wrote:
> * Sphinx:
>- PRO: ReStructured text
>- PRO: variety of output formats (.html, single .html, pdf, epub,
> .txt, etc.)
>- PRO: supports gettext infrastructure
>- CON: only supports gettext in 1.1 (trunk), we're on 1.0 in natty n
On 13.12.2010 11:06, Daniel Holbach wrote:
> * Sphinx:
> - PRO: ReStructured text
> - PRO: variety of output formats (.html, single .html, pdf, epub,
> .txt, etc.)
> - PRO: supports gettext infrastructure
> - CON: only supports gettext in 1.1 (trunk), we're on 1.0 in natty now
>
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Daniel Holbach
wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
> At UDS we talked about "Revamping the Packaging Guide" and figured out a
> plan ([1], [2]) that we feel is realistic and allows us to fix and
> update the Packaging Guide over time.
>
&g
Hello everybody,
the first mail was a summary of the discussion so far. Below my own
thoughts.
On 13.12.2010 11:06, Daniel Holbach wrote:
> The general plan looks like this:
> 1. decide on a toolkit
> 2. review old documentation (reusability, etc. - [3] and [4] might be
> helpful there)
>
Hello everybody,
At UDS we talked about "Revamping the Packaging Guide" and figured out a
plan ([1], [2]) that we feel is realistic and allows us to fix and
update the Packaging Guide over time.
The main problems we want to solve are:
- move away from unmaintainable wiki guides
-
10 matches
Mail list logo
