On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 12:01:08PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > Previously Martin Quinson wrote: > > I think that putting the documentation along the code is the a very good > > solution to get developpers documenting their changes. > > The problem here is CVS, which has a broken idea that a commit can not > span multiple files. > > Also note that we are slowly moving to switching to docbook > documentation for everything in dpkg, including manpages.
AFAIK, you're moving to DocBook sgml, not xml. At least, that's what you did put in the cvs... A long time ago I did ask you to move to xml, to be able to use poxml, but I tested this tool a bit more, and my experiments leaded me to develop po4a... > > We are thinking about other modules, like wml (web meta language), > > texinfo, XML, HTML and others. > > gettext for XML already exists, and I would like to use that instead.. You're speaking about poxml, I guess. It has several limitation over po4a. For example, the way translators can add a section in the translation to explain who did the translation, and where to repport bugs isn't very natural. Other point, lists are a real pain to translate with poxml. And of course, poxml can't handle sgml, and will never ;) > > So, translating pod documentation is as easy as translating man pages (or > > even easier), and pod is far simpler to write for programmers, which is > > another argument for saying that pod documentation is potentially better > > maintained... > > docbook is just as easy. The whole issue is somewhat moot since all perl > will disappear from dpkg anyway :) Yes, but in the meanwhile, you could close this bug by applying the oneliner patch I provided... But as always, you're the boss here. Thanks, Mt. -- This message has been made up using recycled ideas and language constructs. No tree has been cut nor animal harmed in process of making it.
