On 03/20/2012 05:08 PM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2012, Jeff Fearn wrote:
On 03/20/2012 09:59 AM, Joshua Wulf wrote:
Hi, Is the Revision History revnumber format in Publican 3
backwards-incompatible with 2.x?
Correct. P2 allowed a format that produced invalid change log
entries [1]. P3 has been fixed to ensure that change log entries
validate with rpmlint.
Now I understand that the history is required only to build a RPM package
of the doc.
It's also decent publishing practice, and as it says in the docs,
publican is designed to help make your content more publishable.
In Publican 2.x that file was optional. And now it seems to be required.
Can you make it optional again?
Not easily, please open an bug and we will see if it's doable before
release.
It's a pain to have to create such a file when you don't need one or don't
want one.
This is why we added the add_revision action, to make it easy.
BTW, it would also be nice if it supported a Book_Info.xml merged in the
main document instead of having it separated. This makes it easier to use
publican to build documentation out of a random docbook document...
Please open a bug. It's too late to do this for 3.0 but it's a
reasonable request for a later version.
Cheers, Jeff.
--
"Reply All" why you shouldn't use it:
http://www.emailreplies.com/#12replytoall
_______________________________________________
publican-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/publican-list
Wiki: https://fedorahosted.org/publican
