[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco Budde) writes: > APH> * doc-base uses RFC-822 style field format; dhelp uses pseudo-SGML. I > APH> am sure that doc-base's format is superior. > > I#m not, but if the other like the doc-base format, I don#t have a > problem to use it. Could you post a sample doc-base entry, please.
Surely. Here's the file for doc-base itself. More complex than most. Document: doc-base Title: Debian doc-base Manual Author: Christian Schwarz Abstract: This manual describes what doc-base is and how it can be used to manage online manuals on Debian systems. Section: Apps/Programming Format: debiandoc-sgml Files: /usr/doc/doc-base/doc-base.sgml.gz Format: text Files: /usr/doc/doc-base/doc-base.text.gz Format: HTML Index: /usr/doc/doc-base/doc-base.html/index.html Files: /usr/doc/doc-base/doc-base.html/*.html Format: HTML Index: /usr/doc/doc-base/install-docs.html Files: /usr/doc/doc-base/install-docs.html > APH> * doc-base tries to be a generic document registration format; dhelp > APH> tries to just register and organize HTML files. > > That#s right, we need a "Fileformat: " line. It is already there! See above. > I think, "Fileformat: HTML" should optional (not needed), because HTML > will be our standard format. All packages should ship HTML and SGML if > possible (and if possible in two packages). If there#s no SGML/TEXI file, > for example PS should be shiped. Blech. Disagree. Arguably, flat text files are our standard format; a close runner up being debiandoc-sgml. Anyhow, if you want to accomodate lazy pgk maintainers, it would be bettter to try to autoguess the format based on either the file magic (i.e., 'file') or the suffix. Well. Anyhow, I feel like I'm slowly bring Marco around here. Marco, please read the documentation file provided with doc-base too, if you can get a chance. .....A. P. [EMAIL PROTECTED]<URL:http://www.onShore.com/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
