On 2008-07-28 09:58, Josip Rodin wrote: > The existing 'publish' rules are risky enough.
Too risky for my taste. > Anyway, I think we've spent a lot of time musing about this alternative > solution, which may give people the wrong impression. I don't understand this sentence. Which impression and to whom? > The cleanest solution > is to have the necessary tool-chain packages backported For me the cleanest solution is to use "officially" packaged documentation for our web pages, not some by-pass. This provides for public review of documentation _as packaged_, enables our users to install the documentation in exactly the same version as seen on our web pages, and does not suffer from not understanding "Build-Depends". Oops, I'm almost explaining, what's so cool about using a software package manager instead of "make install"/"make publish" ;~) > - it's a useful > thing for everyone, and we are after all a community of packagers - it's > not that hard for us to make backports :) Absolutely true. However, because "make publish" doesn't know about Build-Depends, we will once in a while suffer from errors here, until somebody discovers which backport is necessary and actually does it (e.g. of docbook*, texlive-*, XML toolchain). OTOH, if a documentation writer really wants the latest SVN revision to reflect on the web page, they can just run an svn-buildpackage+dput and they're done. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
