On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Arnaud Quette<[email protected]> wrote: > > > 2009/7/28 Charles Lepple <[email protected]> >> >> On Jul 28, 2009, at 7:53 AM, Arnaud Quette wrote: >> >>> some testing around the NUT Packager Guide to validate the general >>> approach of the new documentation. >>> The shell script is there to track the command line used to generate the >>> HTML output, and the generated HTML file to show the result. >> >> Hi Arnaud, >> >> would it be OK for me to merge the contents of the shell script into >> docs/Makefile.am? >> >> I plan to make the extra Buildbot step copy the generated documentation to >> someplace web-accessible. > > though this is the aim (very) soon, ATM I prefer to keep the simple shell > script for testing quickly and avoiding to call automake.
OK. I will try to merge that into the automake rules, in order to reduce the number of times I need to reconfigure the Buildbot scripts. > btw, for the User and Developer Guides (not applicable to the Packager one), > I'm thinking about using the combined document approach (eg having a > developer.txt that simply includes 1 file per chapters). the drawback of > this is that we can have a header in this file. but we can have this header > as a comment and put all authors in the main file. I've not validated this, > but we might have to use the .xml file to declare multiple authors... > comments and thought on your side? I admit that I do not know much about asciidoc itself - I spent about a half hour trying to get it to generate a hyperlink for a plain URL (using the command line in docs/Makefile.am) before I gave up and focused on the Buildbot side. If we need to, we can paste in an Authors file before running asciidoc. -- - Charles Lepple _______________________________________________ Nut-upsdev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsdev
