Re: Fedora Packaging Guidelines on docs.fedoraproject.org
Brian (bex) Exelbierd wrote: > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 11:03 PM Björn Persson wrote: > >> Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >>> Indeed, asciidoctor works a bit better than asciidoc does but still >>> converts quickly. It's actually in the "rubygem-asciidoctor" package. >> >> Maybe I'll try that next time I have some free time. This is giving me >> a "best viewed with Netscape Navigator" feeling though. Not only are >> there several different badly designed document authoring languages, >> but they're apparently even splitting into tool-specific dialects. > > AIUI asciidoc is no longer maintained at all. AsciiDoc the syntax has > evolved is not even fully supported in the outdated asciidoc tool. AIUI > you should only ever run asciidoctor, the successor tooling, or use it's > libraries in your project). FWIW, git still defaults to asciidoc over asciidoctor. Some work has been done to accommodate asciidoctor, but there are a few minor formatting issues when building the docs with asciidoctor that have kept me from using it in the git packages. I agree that newer projects should target asciidoctor's implementation. I just wouldn't want to see asciidoc dropped too soon because we think it's completely unused. -- Todd ~~ I never forget a face, but in your case I'll be glad to make an exception. -- Groucho Marx signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora Packaging Guidelines on docs.fedoraproject.org
Hi, The question is not about code higlighting but rendering, so when you look > at an > .adoc file it looks like what it would look once transformed into html. > Just like, when you are looking at a readme.md, you don't see the markdown > syntax (unless you specifically ask for it). > For this you can create a local test (I think how to do this is explained in the docs' pagure) or use an editor that create a preview like atom with the asciidoc plugin or asciidocfx. More options can be found on the asciidoc site [1]. Hope this is helpful, Eduard Lucena [1] https://asciidoctor.org/docs/editing-asciidoc-with-live-preview/ > ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora Packaging Guidelines on docs.fedoraproject.org
On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 05:58:57PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 5:00 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 9:02 AM Vít Ondruch wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dne 2.10.2018 v 13:11 Pierre-Yves Chibon napsal(a): > > > > On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 11:53:45AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Dne 1.10.2018 v 20:00 Jason L Tibbitts III napsal(a): > > > "BP" == Björn Persson writes: > > > >>> BP> This was on Fedora 27. So one needs Fedora 28 to help fixing the > > > >>> BP> formatting of the guidelines then? (Once that other breakage is > > > >>> BP> fixed I suppose?) > > > >>> > > > >>> I believe one could build the antora stack from scratch instead of > > > >>> using > > > >>> a container. I would hope it wouldn't require F28 to do so, but it's > > > >>> still way too high of a barrier. > > > >>> > > > >>> BP> Yeah, no I don't think I'm going to run any document conversion > > > >>> BP> programs as root. > > > >>> > > > >>> You certainly shouldn't have to. The problem is making it look like > > > >>> it > > > >>> looks on the web site, since I guess the markup itself is dependent on > > > >>> stylesheets and extra information which isn't actually included in the > > > >>> documents. > > > >>> > > > >>> For a single page, though, it seems that you can get a reasonable > > > >>> interpretation merely by installing asciidoc and running "asciidoc > > > >>> foo.adoc". > > > >> For a single page, it would be nice if Pagure supported .adoc as it > > > >> supports other makrdowns > > > > There is a ticket asking just for this. We'll get to it sooner or later. > > > > > > > >> ... > > > > Not quite sure what this implies > > > > > > It is just surprising it is not supported yet out of the box by whatever > > > library you are using to convert other markups to html. > > > > > > > Pagure is in Python. There are now no useful implementations of *.adoc > > renderers in Python. It's not that surprising. > > After a bit of looking around, it looks like almost no code > highlighting tool supports AsciiDoc (yet). Neither pygments (python) > nor rouge (ruby) support it. > > The only "libraries" supporting AsciiDoc that I could find were > highlight.js and prism.js. But, looking at pagure's source code, it > already seems to use highlight.js. Maybe it's just a version without > AsciiDoc support enabled? The question is not about code higlighting but rendering, so when you look at an .adoc file it looks like what it would look once transformed into html. Just like, when you are looking at a readme.md, you don't see the markdown syntax (unless you specifically ask for it). Hoping this helps, Pierre ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora Packaging Guidelines on docs.fedoraproject.org
On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 10:37 AM Vít Ondruch wrote: > > > Dne 2.10.2018 v 18:59 Neal Gompa napsal(a): > > On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 11:59 AM Fabio Valentini > wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 5:00 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > >>> On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 9:02 AM Vít Ondruch > wrote: > > > Dne 2.10.2018 v 13:11 Pierre-Yves Chibon napsal(a): > > On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 11:53:45AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > >> Dne 1.10.2018 v 20:00 Jason L Tibbitts III napsal(a): > "BP" == Björn Persson writes: > >>> BP> This was on Fedora 27. So one needs Fedora 28 to help fixing > the > >>> BP> formatting of the guidelines then? (Once that other breakage is > >>> BP> fixed I suppose?) > >>> > >>> I believe one could build the antora stack from scratch instead of > using > >>> a container. I would hope it wouldn't require F28 to do so, but > it's > >>> still way too high of a barrier. > >>> > >>> BP> Yeah, no I don't think I'm going to run any document conversion > >>> BP> programs as root. > >>> > >>> You certainly shouldn't have to. The problem is making it look > like it > >>> looks on the web site, since I guess the markup itself is > dependent on > >>> stylesheets and extra information which isn't actually included in > the > >>> documents. > >>> > >>> For a single page, though, it seems that you can get a reasonable > >>> interpretation merely by installing asciidoc and running "asciidoc > >>> foo.adoc". > >> For a single page, it would be nice if Pagure supported .adoc as it > >> supports other makrdowns > > There is a ticket asking just for this. We'll get to it sooner or > later. > > > >> ... > > Not quite sure what this implies > It is just surprising it is not supported yet out of the box by > whatever > library you are using to convert other markups to html. > > >>> Pagure is in Python. There are now no useful implementations of *.adoc > >>> renderers in Python. It's not that surprising. > >> After a bit of looking around, it looks like almost no code > >> highlighting tool supports AsciiDoc (yet). Neither pygments (python) > >> nor rouge (ruby) support it. > > There is Tilt [1] in Ruby, which supports almost everything, including > AsciiDoctor. This library exists almost since forever, so it is > surprising there would not be anything similar in Python. > > >> The only "libraries" supporting AsciiDoc that I could find were > >> highlight.js and prism.js. But, looking at pagure's source code, it > >> already seems to use highlight.js. Maybe it's just a version without > >> AsciiDoc support enabled? > >> > > There are some quirks with highlight.js that we're still working > > through for pagure 5, but highlight.js only supports syntax > > highlighting, not rendering. The problem is that Pagure is incapable > > of rendering asciidoc safely right now. > > > > We can render Markdown and reStructuredText because there are solid > > implementations for them that we can use. > > What about: > > https://github.com/asciidoctor/asciidoctor.js > > As far as I understand, that should be precisely the same implementation > as AsciiDoctor in Ruby. > I am also 100% certain this is the underlying library used by Antora. regards, bex > > > V. > > > [1] https://github.com/rtomayko/tilt > > > > >> Side note: Is AsciiDoc really such an obscure format? > >> > > Yes. Unlike most text formats, AsciiDoc is really defined by the tool > > that renders it. The only other format that was in a similar situation > > was Markdown, but the CommonMark specification has allowed for a > > number of independent implementations to exist that behave coherently. > > > > > > > > -- > > 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! > > ___ > > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html > > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > -- Brian (bex) Exelbierd | bexel...@redhat.com | b...@pobox.com Fedora Community Action & Impact Coordinator @bexelbie | http://www.winglemeyer.org ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct:
Re: Fedora Packaging Guidelines on docs.fedoraproject.org
Dne 2.10.2018 v 18:59 Neal Gompa napsal(a): > On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 11:59 AM Fabio Valentini wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 5:00 PM Neal Gompa wrote: >>> On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 9:02 AM Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 2.10.2018 v 13:11 Pierre-Yves Chibon napsal(a): > On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 11:53:45AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> Dne 1.10.2018 v 20:00 Jason L Tibbitts III napsal(a): "BP" == Björn Persson writes: >>> BP> This was on Fedora 27. So one needs Fedora 28 to help fixing the >>> BP> formatting of the guidelines then? (Once that other breakage is >>> BP> fixed I suppose?) >>> >>> I believe one could build the antora stack from scratch instead of using >>> a container. I would hope it wouldn't require F28 to do so, but it's >>> still way too high of a barrier. >>> >>> BP> Yeah, no I don't think I'm going to run any document conversion >>> BP> programs as root. >>> >>> You certainly shouldn't have to. The problem is making it look like it >>> looks on the web site, since I guess the markup itself is dependent on >>> stylesheets and extra information which isn't actually included in the >>> documents. >>> >>> For a single page, though, it seems that you can get a reasonable >>> interpretation merely by installing asciidoc and running "asciidoc >>> foo.adoc". >> For a single page, it would be nice if Pagure supported .adoc as it >> supports other makrdowns > There is a ticket asking just for this. We'll get to it sooner or later. > >> ... > Not quite sure what this implies It is just surprising it is not supported yet out of the box by whatever library you are using to convert other markups to html. >>> Pagure is in Python. There are now no useful implementations of *.adoc >>> renderers in Python. It's not that surprising. >> After a bit of looking around, it looks like almost no code >> highlighting tool supports AsciiDoc (yet). Neither pygments (python) >> nor rouge (ruby) support it. There is Tilt [1] in Ruby, which supports almost everything, including AsciiDoctor. This library exists almost since forever, so it is surprising there would not be anything similar in Python. >> The only "libraries" supporting AsciiDoc that I could find were >> highlight.js and prism.js. But, looking at pagure's source code, it >> already seems to use highlight.js. Maybe it's just a version without >> AsciiDoc support enabled? >> > There are some quirks with highlight.js that we're still working > through for pagure 5, but highlight.js only supports syntax > highlighting, not rendering. The problem is that Pagure is incapable > of rendering asciidoc safely right now. > > We can render Markdown and reStructuredText because there are solid > implementations for them that we can use. What about: https://github.com/asciidoctor/asciidoctor.js As far as I understand, that should be precisely the same implementation as AsciiDoctor in Ruby. V. [1] https://github.com/rtomayko/tilt > >> Side note: Is AsciiDoc really such an obscure format? >> > Yes. Unlike most text formats, AsciiDoc is really defined by the tool > that renders it. The only other format that was in a similar situation > was Markdown, but the CommonMark specification has allowed for a > number of independent implementations to exist that behave coherently. > > > > -- > 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora Packaging Guidelines on docs.fedoraproject.org
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 11:59 AM Fabio Valentini wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 5:00 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 9:02 AM Vít Ondruch wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dne 2.10.2018 v 13:11 Pierre-Yves Chibon napsal(a): > > > > On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 11:53:45AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Dne 1.10.2018 v 20:00 Jason L Tibbitts III napsal(a): > > > "BP" == Björn Persson writes: > > > >>> BP> This was on Fedora 27. So one needs Fedora 28 to help fixing the > > > >>> BP> formatting of the guidelines then? (Once that other breakage is > > > >>> BP> fixed I suppose?) > > > >>> > > > >>> I believe one could build the antora stack from scratch instead of > > > >>> using > > > >>> a container. I would hope it wouldn't require F28 to do so, but it's > > > >>> still way too high of a barrier. > > > >>> > > > >>> BP> Yeah, no I don't think I'm going to run any document conversion > > > >>> BP> programs as root. > > > >>> > > > >>> You certainly shouldn't have to. The problem is making it look like > > > >>> it > > > >>> looks on the web site, since I guess the markup itself is dependent on > > > >>> stylesheets and extra information which isn't actually included in the > > > >>> documents. > > > >>> > > > >>> For a single page, though, it seems that you can get a reasonable > > > >>> interpretation merely by installing asciidoc and running "asciidoc > > > >>> foo.adoc". > > > >> For a single page, it would be nice if Pagure supported .adoc as it > > > >> supports other makrdowns > > > > There is a ticket asking just for this. We'll get to it sooner or later. > > > > > > > >> ... > > > > Not quite sure what this implies > > > > > > It is just surprising it is not supported yet out of the box by whatever > > > library you are using to convert other markups to html. > > > > > > > Pagure is in Python. There are now no useful implementations of *.adoc > > renderers in Python. It's not that surprising. > > After a bit of looking around, it looks like almost no code > highlighting tool supports AsciiDoc (yet). Neither pygments (python) > nor rouge (ruby) support it. > > The only "libraries" supporting AsciiDoc that I could find were > highlight.js and prism.js. But, looking at pagure's source code, it > already seems to use highlight.js. Maybe it's just a version without > AsciiDoc support enabled? > There are some quirks with highlight.js that we're still working through for pagure 5, but highlight.js only supports syntax highlighting, not rendering. The problem is that Pagure is incapable of rendering asciidoc safely right now. We can render Markdown and reStructuredText because there are solid implementations for them that we can use. > Side note: Is AsciiDoc really such an obscure format? > Yes. Unlike most text formats, AsciiDoc is really defined by the tool that renders it. The only other format that was in a similar situation was Markdown, but the CommonMark specification has allowed for a number of independent implementations to exist that behave coherently. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora Packaging Guidelines on docs.fedoraproject.org
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 5:00 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 9:02 AM Vít Ondruch wrote: > > > > > > > > Dne 2.10.2018 v 13:11 Pierre-Yves Chibon napsal(a): > > > On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 11:53:45AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > >> > > >> Dne 1.10.2018 v 20:00 Jason L Tibbitts III napsal(a): > > "BP" == Björn Persson writes: > > >>> BP> This was on Fedora 27. So one needs Fedora 28 to help fixing the > > >>> BP> formatting of the guidelines then? (Once that other breakage is > > >>> BP> fixed I suppose?) > > >>> > > >>> I believe one could build the antora stack from scratch instead of using > > >>> a container. I would hope it wouldn't require F28 to do so, but it's > > >>> still way too high of a barrier. > > >>> > > >>> BP> Yeah, no I don't think I'm going to run any document conversion > > >>> BP> programs as root. > > >>> > > >>> You certainly shouldn't have to. The problem is making it look like it > > >>> looks on the web site, since I guess the markup itself is dependent on > > >>> stylesheets and extra information which isn't actually included in the > > >>> documents. > > >>> > > >>> For a single page, though, it seems that you can get a reasonable > > >>> interpretation merely by installing asciidoc and running "asciidoc > > >>> foo.adoc". > > >> For a single page, it would be nice if Pagure supported .adoc as it > > >> supports other makrdowns > > > There is a ticket asking just for this. We'll get to it sooner or later. > > > > > >> ... > > > Not quite sure what this implies > > > > It is just surprising it is not supported yet out of the box by whatever > > library you are using to convert other markups to html. > > > > Pagure is in Python. There are now no useful implementations of *.adoc > renderers in Python. It's not that surprising. After a bit of looking around, it looks like almost no code highlighting tool supports AsciiDoc (yet). Neither pygments (python) nor rouge (ruby) support it. The only "libraries" supporting AsciiDoc that I could find were highlight.js and prism.js. But, looking at pagure's source code, it already seems to use highlight.js. Maybe it's just a version without AsciiDoc support enabled? Side note: Is AsciiDoc really such an obscure format? Fabio > -- > 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora Packaging Guidelines on docs.fedoraproject.org
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 9:02 AM Vít Ondruch wrote: > > > > Dne 2.10.2018 v 13:11 Pierre-Yves Chibon napsal(a): > > On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 11:53:45AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > >> > >> Dne 1.10.2018 v 20:00 Jason L Tibbitts III napsal(a): > "BP" == Björn Persson writes: > >>> BP> This was on Fedora 27. So one needs Fedora 28 to help fixing the > >>> BP> formatting of the guidelines then? (Once that other breakage is > >>> BP> fixed I suppose?) > >>> > >>> I believe one could build the antora stack from scratch instead of using > >>> a container. I would hope it wouldn't require F28 to do so, but it's > >>> still way too high of a barrier. > >>> > >>> BP> Yeah, no I don't think I'm going to run any document conversion > >>> BP> programs as root. > >>> > >>> You certainly shouldn't have to. The problem is making it look like it > >>> looks on the web site, since I guess the markup itself is dependent on > >>> stylesheets and extra information which isn't actually included in the > >>> documents. > >>> > >>> For a single page, though, it seems that you can get a reasonable > >>> interpretation merely by installing asciidoc and running "asciidoc > >>> foo.adoc". > >> For a single page, it would be nice if Pagure supported .adoc as it > >> supports other makrdowns > > There is a ticket asking just for this. We'll get to it sooner or later. > > > >> ... > > Not quite sure what this implies > > It is just surprising it is not supported yet out of the box by whatever > library you are using to convert other markups to html. > Pagure is in Python. There are now no useful implementations of *.adoc renderers in Python. It's not that surprising. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora Packaging Guidelines on docs.fedoraproject.org
> "AS" == Ankur Sinha writes: AS> For example, maybe [1] should link to [2], since I expect the AS> sponsorship process falls under the FPC's scope? It does not. - J< ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora Packaging Guidelines on docs.fedoraproject.org
On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 03:01:34PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > > Dne 2.10.2018 v 13:11 Pierre-Yves Chibon napsal(a): > > On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 11:53:45AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > >> > >> Dne 1.10.2018 v 20:00 Jason L Tibbitts III napsal(a): > "BP" == Björn Persson writes: > >>> BP> This was on Fedora 27. So one needs Fedora 28 to help fixing the > >>> BP> formatting of the guidelines then? (Once that other breakage is > >>> BP> fixed I suppose?) > >>> > >>> I believe one could build the antora stack from scratch instead of using > >>> a container. I would hope it wouldn't require F28 to do so, but it's > >>> still way too high of a barrier. > >>> > >>> BP> Yeah, no I don't think I'm going to run any document conversion > >>> BP> programs as root. > >>> > >>> You certainly shouldn't have to. The problem is making it look like it > >>> looks on the web site, since I guess the markup itself is dependent on > >>> stylesheets and extra information which isn't actually included in the > >>> documents. > >>> > >>> For a single page, though, it seems that you can get a reasonable > >>> interpretation merely by installing asciidoc and running "asciidoc > >>> foo.adoc". > >> For a single page, it would be nice if Pagure supported .adoc as it > >> supports other makrdowns > > There is a ticket asking just for this. We'll get to it sooner or later. > > > >> ... > > Not quite sure what this implies > > It is just surprising it is not supported yet out of the box by whatever > library you are using to convert other markups to html. Each markup has its own library, we're not using just one. Pierre ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora Packaging Guidelines on docs.fedoraproject.org
Dne 2.10.2018 v 13:11 Pierre-Yves Chibon napsal(a): > On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 11:53:45AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> >> Dne 1.10.2018 v 20:00 Jason L Tibbitts III napsal(a): "BP" == Björn Persson writes: >>> BP> This was on Fedora 27. So one needs Fedora 28 to help fixing the >>> BP> formatting of the guidelines then? (Once that other breakage is >>> BP> fixed I suppose?) >>> >>> I believe one could build the antora stack from scratch instead of using >>> a container. I would hope it wouldn't require F28 to do so, but it's >>> still way too high of a barrier. >>> >>> BP> Yeah, no I don't think I'm going to run any document conversion >>> BP> programs as root. >>> >>> You certainly shouldn't have to. The problem is making it look like it >>> looks on the web site, since I guess the markup itself is dependent on >>> stylesheets and extra information which isn't actually included in the >>> documents. >>> >>> For a single page, though, it seems that you can get a reasonable >>> interpretation merely by installing asciidoc and running "asciidoc >>> foo.adoc". >> For a single page, it would be nice if Pagure supported .adoc as it >> supports other makrdowns > There is a ticket asking just for this. We'll get to it sooner or later. > >> ... > Not quite sure what this implies It is just surprising it is not supported yet out of the box by whatever library you are using to convert other markups to html. V. > > > > Pierre > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora Packaging Guidelines on docs.fedoraproject.org
On Mon, Oct 01, 2018 14:51:55 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Mon, Oct 01, 2018 at 09:47:37AM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > > "AS" == Ankur Sinha writes: > > > > AS> Thank you---that's really neat! Would other relatively static pages > > AS> such as these also be migrated? > > > > Those are outside the scope of the packaging committee. They could > > certainly be migrated in a similar fashion, but they wouldn't live in > > the packaging committee's repository and I don't think the packaging > > committee would be the entity that would initiate such a move. > > > > Personally I believe that the pages you mention are not static at all > > and are better located where they can be edited by the community, and > > that's exactly what the wiki is for. The new format far better fits the > > packaging guidelines where edits were restricted. > > +1 > > I think we instead should make sure that all docs under docs.fp.o > contain good links to those pages on the wiki. > +1 For example, maybe [1] should link to [2], since I expect the sponsorship process falls under the FPC's scope? [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD" https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Time zone: Europe/London signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora Packaging Guidelines on docs.fedoraproject.org
On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 11:53:45AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > > Dne 1.10.2018 v 20:00 Jason L Tibbitts III napsal(a): > >> "BP" == Björn Persson writes: > > BP> This was on Fedora 27. So one needs Fedora 28 to help fixing the > > BP> formatting of the guidelines then? (Once that other breakage is > > BP> fixed I suppose?) > > > > I believe one could build the antora stack from scratch instead of using > > a container. I would hope it wouldn't require F28 to do so, but it's > > still way too high of a barrier. > > > > BP> Yeah, no I don't think I'm going to run any document conversion > > BP> programs as root. > > > > You certainly shouldn't have to. The problem is making it look like it > > looks on the web site, since I guess the markup itself is dependent on > > stylesheets and extra information which isn't actually included in the > > documents. > > > > For a single page, though, it seems that you can get a reasonable > > interpretation merely by installing asciidoc and running "asciidoc > > foo.adoc". > > For a single page, it would be nice if Pagure supported .adoc as it > supports other makrdowns There is a ticket asking just for this. We'll get to it sooner or later. > ... Not quite sure what this implies Pierre ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora Packaging Guidelines on docs.fedoraproject.org
Dne 1.10.2018 v 20:00 Jason L Tibbitts III napsal(a): >> "BP" == Björn Persson writes: > BP> This was on Fedora 27. So one needs Fedora 28 to help fixing the > BP> formatting of the guidelines then? (Once that other breakage is > BP> fixed I suppose?) > > I believe one could build the antora stack from scratch instead of using > a container. I would hope it wouldn't require F28 to do so, but it's > still way too high of a barrier. > > BP> Yeah, no I don't think I'm going to run any document conversion > BP> programs as root. > > You certainly shouldn't have to. The problem is making it look like it > looks on the web site, since I guess the markup itself is dependent on > stylesheets and extra information which isn't actually included in the > documents. > > For a single page, though, it seems that you can get a reasonable > interpretation merely by installing asciidoc and running "asciidoc > foo.adoc". For a single page, it would be nice if Pagure supported .adoc as it supports other makrdowns ... V. > That will spit out foo.html which you can open in a local > browser. That's what I've been doing, but unfortunately it doesn't give > me the same results. For example, it doesn't appear to handle the > `+whatever+` syntax properly and inserts the literal plusses in the > output while the antora-generated version doesn't. I do not know why. > > BP> I'm getting the impression that you're shooting mosquitoes with a > BP> cannon. > > Plain asciidoc is the lightest weight solution I've found so far. Maybe > someone knows some magic that could be passed to asciidoc or another > converter which is actually part of the distribution which could be used > for at least a more consistent previous. > > I'm extremely dissatisfied at the way this has been handled and wish I'd > had sufficient free time to find some of these issues before this was > implemented, but at the time I didn't and now it seems that the only way > out is forward. > > - J< > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora Packaging Guidelines on docs.fedoraproject.org
On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 11:03 PM Björn Persson wrote: > Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > Indeed, asciidoctor works a bit better than asciidoc does but still > > converts quickly. It's actually in the "rubygem-asciidoctor" package. > > Maybe I'll try that next time I have some free time. This is giving me > a "best viewed with Netscape Navigator" feeling though. Not only are > there several different badly designed document authoring languages, > but they're apparently even splitting into tool-specific dialects. > AIUI asciidoc is no longer maintained at all. AsciiDoc the syntax has evolved is not even fully supported in the outdated asciidoc tool. AIUI you should only ever run asciidoctor, the successor tooling, or use it's libraries in your project). regards, bex > > Björn Persson > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > -- Brian (bex) Exelbierd | bexel...@redhat.com | b...@pobox.com Fedora Community Action & Impact Coordinator @bexelbie | http://www.winglemeyer.org ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora Packaging Guidelines on docs.fedoraproject.org
On 1.10.2018 23:38, Neal Gompa wrote: On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 5:03 PM Björn Persson wrote: Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: Indeed, asciidoctor works a bit better than asciidoc does but still converts quickly. It's actually in the "rubygem-asciidoctor" package. Maybe I'll try that next time I have some free time. This is giving me a "best viewed with Netscape Navigator" feeling though. Not only are there several different badly designed document authoring languages, but they're apparently even splitting into tool-specific dialects. I'm wondering if it was a good idea to use asciidoc in the first place. Unlike reStructuredText, asciidoc implementations seem to be in very poor shape. While the entire situation (the tool used is not packages, the conversion is incomplete) is not perfect, I wouldn't blame it on asciidoc implementations. asciidoctor is very good actually and I don't see why to consider it "very poor shape". I have much more experience with sphinx + rst and in fact would personally liked it more, but there's nothing wrong with asciidoc markup. What's wrong is the need of using magic containers to build the docs. But that's most entirely not asciidoc's fault. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora Packaging Guidelines on docs.fedoraproject.org
> "JF" == John Florian writes: JF> I would agree with that, but I read the announcement as if this JF> *was* finished. The announcement was unfortunately made before things were in what I would consider to be a "releasable" condition. Currently the Wiki pages continue to exist and have not diverged significantly as I have yet to write any new content into the new pages. As that happens, I will add notes to the corresponding wiki pages mentioning that they are outdated copies. Eventually we will replace them with redirects, though I see no reason to delete the original page histories and I imagine they will remain available as long as the wiki itself. Personally I would not have chosen to announce it until things were in better shape, but what's done is done and my effort will be devoted to moving forward. - J< ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora Packaging Guidelines on docs.fedoraproject.org
> "NG" == Neal Gompa writes: NG> I'm wondering if it was a good idea to use asciidoc in the first NG> place. Unlike reStructuredText, asciidoc implementations seem to be NG> in very poor shape. It's what the documentation team has chosen. I don't think the packaging committee would want to do its own thing here; staying with the wiki would have been a better option than that. - J< ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora Packaging Guidelines on docs.fedoraproject.org
On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 5:03 PM Björn Persson wrote: > > Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > Indeed, asciidoctor works a bit better than asciidoc does but still > > converts quickly. It's actually in the "rubygem-asciidoctor" package. > > Maybe I'll try that next time I have some free time. This is giving me > a "best viewed with Netscape Navigator" feeling though. Not only are > there several different badly designed document authoring languages, > but they're apparently even splitting into tool-specific dialects. > I'm wondering if it was a good idea to use asciidoc in the first place. Unlike reStructuredText, asciidoc implementations seem to be in very poor shape. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora Packaging Guidelines on docs.fedoraproject.org
On Mon, Oct 01, 2018 at 11:02:13PM +0200, Björn Persson wrote: > > Indeed, asciidoctor works a bit better than asciidoc does but still > > converts quickly. It's actually in the "rubygem-asciidoctor" package. > Maybe I'll try that next time I have some free time. This is giving me > a "best viewed with Netscape Navigator" feeling though. Not only are > there several different badly designed document authoring languages, > but they're apparently even splitting into tool-specific dialects. That's not really the case here. See https://github.com/asciidoc/asciidoc; asciidoctor is officially the blessed successor to asciidoc. -- Matthew Miller Fedora Project Leader ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora Packaging Guidelines on docs.fedoraproject.org
On 2018-10-01 17:04, Björn Persson wrote: John Florian wrote: And conversely, shouldn't https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines be telling viewers they now need to go to docs.fp.o? Not until the conversion is finished, in my opinion. I would agree with that, but I read the announcement as if this *was* finished. It said "moved" so that was my impression, but I see with the discussion here that maybe this is really more like an RC? ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora Packaging Guidelines on docs.fedoraproject.org
John Florian wrote: > And conversely, shouldn't > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines be telling viewers > they now need to go to docs.fp.o? Not until the conversion is finished, in my opinion. Björn Persson pgpChXjsJJFLd.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signatur ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora Packaging Guidelines on docs.fedoraproject.org
On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 8:22 PM Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > Indeed, asciidoctor works a bit better than asciidoc does but still > converts quickly. It's actually in the "rubygem-asciidoctor" package. FWIW, We *could* use the asciidoctor / asciidoc plugin for jekyll. Both asciidoctor and jekyll are packaged for fedora. The only thing that's missing to support that with official fedora packages right now is a package for rubygem(jekyll-asciidoc). (Check @package-review, guess which package is waiting there for a review ;)) Fabio > - J< > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora Packaging Guidelines on docs.fedoraproject.org
Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > Indeed, asciidoctor works a bit better than asciidoc does but still > converts quickly. It's actually in the "rubygem-asciidoctor" package. Maybe I'll try that next time I have some free time. This is giving me a "best viewed with Netscape Navigator" feeling though. Not only are there several different badly designed document authoring languages, but they're apparently even splitting into tool-specific dialects. Björn Persson pgpdwRaF_UeOq.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signatur ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora Packaging Guidelines on docs.fedoraproject.org
On Mon, Oct 01, 2018 at 03:59:21PM -0400, John Florian wrote:
> On 2018-10-01 10:51, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> >I think we instead should make sure that all docs under docs.fp.o
> And conversely, shouldn't
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines be telling
> viewers they now need to go to docs.fp.o?
There's a wiki plugin which can be used:
{{#fedoradocs: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/}}
will cause a redirect.
--
Matthew Miller
Fedora Project Leader
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora Packaging Guidelines on docs.fedoraproject.org
On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 at 16:27, Igor Gnatenko < ignatenkobr...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > Hello everyone, > > We have moved packaging guidelines onto docs.fedoraproject.org[0]. > If you find any error or would like to change something, don't hesitate to > open ticket or submit pull request for packaging committee repo[1]. > This is great, welcome to the Docs! I can see a lot of feedback in this thread. I might not be the fastest, but I'll definitely catch up with it all and see what I can do. Thanks all! > > Thanks for attention! > > > [0] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ > [1] https://pagure.io/packaging-committee > -- > > -Igor Gnatenko > ___ > devel-announce mailing list -- devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to > devel-announce-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org > -- Adam Šamalík --- Software Engineer Red Hat ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora Packaging Guidelines on docs.fedoraproject.org
On 2018-10-01 10:51, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: I think we instead should make sure that all docs under docs.fp.o contain good links to those pages on the wiki. And conversely, shouldn't https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines be telling viewers they now need to go to docs.fp.o? ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora Packaging Guidelines on docs.fedoraproject.org
Indeed, asciidoctor works a bit better than asciidoc does but still converts quickly. It's actually in the "rubygem-asciidoctor" package. - J< ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora Packaging Guidelines on docs.fedoraproject.org
On 1.10.2018 20:00, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: "BP" == Björn Persson writes: BP> This was on Fedora 27. So one needs Fedora 28 to help fixing the BP> formatting of the guidelines then? (Once that other breakage is BP> fixed I suppose?) I believe one could build the antora stack from scratch instead of using a container. I would hope it wouldn't require F28 to do so, but it's still way too high of a barrier. BP> Yeah, no I don't think I'm going to run any document conversion BP> programs as root. You certainly shouldn't have to. The problem is making it look like it looks on the web site, since I guess the markup itself is dependent on stylesheets and extra information which isn't actually included in the documents. For a single page, though, it seems that you can get a reasonable interpretation merely by installing asciidoc and running "asciidoc foo.adoc". That will spit out foo.html which you can open in a local browser. That's what I've been doing, but unfortunately it doesn't give me the same results. For example, it doesn't appear to handle the `+whatever+` syntax properly and inserts the literal plusses in the output while the antora-generated version doesn't. I do not know why. BP> I'm getting the impression that you're shooting mosquitoes with a BP> cannon. Plain asciidoc is the lightest weight solution I've found so far. Maybe someone knows some magic that could be passed to asciidoc or another converter which is actually part of the distribution which could be used for at least a more consistent previous. For what's it work, I had a good experience with asciidoctor, although I haven't tried to use it on our guidelines yet. $ sudo dnf install asciidoctor -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora Packaging Guidelines on docs.fedoraproject.org
> "BP" == Björn Persson writes: BP> This was on Fedora 27. So one needs Fedora 28 to help fixing the BP> formatting of the guidelines then? (Once that other breakage is BP> fixed I suppose?) I believe one could build the antora stack from scratch instead of using a container. I would hope it wouldn't require F28 to do so, but it's still way too high of a barrier. BP> Yeah, no I don't think I'm going to run any document conversion BP> programs as root. You certainly shouldn't have to. The problem is making it look like it looks on the web site, since I guess the markup itself is dependent on stylesheets and extra information which isn't actually included in the documents. For a single page, though, it seems that you can get a reasonable interpretation merely by installing asciidoc and running "asciidoc foo.adoc". That will spit out foo.html which you can open in a local browser. That's what I've been doing, but unfortunately it doesn't give me the same results. For example, it doesn't appear to handle the `+whatever+` syntax properly and inserts the literal plusses in the output while the antora-generated version doesn't. I do not know why. BP> I'm getting the impression that you're shooting mosquitoes with a BP> cannon. Plain asciidoc is the lightest weight solution I've found so far. Maybe someone knows some magic that could be passed to asciidoc or another converter which is actually part of the distribution which could be used for at least a more consistent previous. I'm extremely dissatisfied at the way this has been handled and wish I'd had sufficient free time to find some of these issues before this was implemented, but at the time I didn't and now it seems that the only way out is forward. - J< ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora Packaging Guidelines on docs.fedoraproject.org
Igor Gnatenko wrote: > Seems that podman is broken (it is also broken for tibbs in some other > way), this is really sad. Just wondering which version of fedora you are > running and is there really no package called "slirp4netns" (I can see it > in F28/F29/F30). This was on Fedora 27. So one needs Fedora 28 to help fixing the formatting of the guidelines then? (Once that other breakage is fixed I suppose?) > I'm sorry to hear this, try using `sudo docker` in Make file instead of > `podman`. Reason I choose to use podman is that you don't have to be root > in order to run it. Yeah, no I don't think I'm going to run any document conversion programs as root. I'm getting the impression that you're shooting mosquitoes with a cannon. I wasn't trying to set up a mirror of the website or anything. I just wanted to preview the result of my edits. "If I change the .adoc file like this, does it cause the desired change to the HTML code?" That was all I needed to know. It can hardly be necessary to mess with containers just to convert a document from one markup language to another. Björn Persson pgptwrR_8avRm.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signatur ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora Packaging Guidelines on docs.fedoraproject.org
On Mon, Oct 01, 2018 at 09:47:37AM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > "AS" == Ankur Sinha writes: > > AS> Thank you---that's really neat! Would other relatively static pages > AS> such as these also be migrated? > > Those are outside the scope of the packaging committee. They could > certainly be migrated in a similar fashion, but they wouldn't live in > the packaging committee's repository and I don't think the packaging > committee would be the entity that would initiate such a move. > > Personally I believe that the pages you mention are not static at all > and are better located where they can be edited by the community, and > that's exactly what the wiki is for. The new format far better fits the > packaging guidelines where edits were restricted. +1 I think we instead should make sure that all docs under docs.fp.o contain good links to those pages on the wiki. Zbyszek ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora Packaging Guidelines on docs.fedoraproject.org
> "AS" == Ankur Sinha writes: AS> Thank you---that's really neat! Would other relatively static pages AS> such as these also be migrated? Those are outside the scope of the packaging committee. They could certainly be migrated in a similar fashion, but they wouldn't live in the packaging committee's repository and I don't think the packaging committee would be the entity that would initiate such a move. Personally I believe that the pages you mention are not static at all and are better located where they can be edited by the community, and that's exactly what the wiki is for. The new format far better fits the packaging guidelines where edits were restricted. - J< ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora Packaging Guidelines on docs.fedoraproject.org
On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 10:24 PM Björn Persson wrote: > Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 02:02:37PM +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > > We have moved packaging guidelines onto docs.fedoraproject.org[0]. > > > If you find any error or would like to change something, don't > hesitate to > > > open ticket or submit pull request for packaging committee repo[1]. > > > > Hmmm, comparing > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_automatically_generated_dependencies > > and > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Automatically_generated_dependencies > > doesn't make me happy. > > That doesn't look too bad compared to > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Ada/. > Raw markup is displayed instead of links, wildcard characters have been > turned into stretches of bold font, while asterisks that were supposed > to become bold font are displayed instead, HTML var tags have been > removed and replaced with nothing at all, and there is inconsistent use > of monospace font, inconsistent quotation marks, and a stray grave accent > as a cherry on top. > > That's what happens when one writes documents in a haphazard ad-hoc > markup language tied to a certain tool, and then tries to switch to > another tool that expects another haphazard ad-hoc markup language. > > I was going to try to fix up the Ada guidelines. Obviously I need to be > able to generate HTML from the .adoc file, because the only way to write > in a haphazard ad-hoc language is to make haphazard ad-hoc changes, > preview the result, and repeat until it looks good. Following the > instructions in README.md I installed the package "podman" and ran > "make". After downloading six blobs of unknown contents it failed with > these error messages: > > ERRO[0232] could not find slirp4netns, the network namespace won't be > configured: exec: "slirp4netns": executable file not found in $PATH > error: getaddrinfo EAI_AGAIN asamalik.fedorapeople.org:443 Seems that podman is broken (it is also broken for tibbs in some other way), this is really sad. Just wondering which version of fedora you are running and is there really no package called "slirp4netns" (I can see it in F28/F29/F30). > I couldn't find any package that provides "slirp4netns", so that was a > dead end. Then I tried the command "asciidoc", because README.md says > that the guidelines are supposed to be written in Asciidoc. That > produced even worse HTML than that at docs.fedoraproject.org, with plus > signs everywhere and a partially mangled bullet list. Apparently the > Asciidoc that these documents are written in isn't the Asciidoc that > asciidoc understands. > > This was a disappointing experience. I thought the ability to merge > changes with Git would make it easier to submit changes to the > guidelines. Instead it seems to have become harder. In the wiki I could > at least preview my changes. > I'm sorry to hear this, try using `sudo docker` in Make file instead of `podman`. Reason I choose to use podman is that you don't have to be root in order to run it. > By the way, the way that Pagure tries to syntax-highlight the .adoc > files is very confusing. I don't know which language Pagure tries to > syntax-highlight – or rather which two languages, because the way it > sprinkles colors over the file in the "blame" view is entirely different > from what it does in the "blob" view – but it needs to be taught that > these files aren't either of those languages. > I think this is known and should be improved (soon?). There was a ticket about this in pagure, but I can't find it right now. > Björn Persson > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > -- -Igor Gnatenko ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora Packaging Guidelines on docs.fedoraproject.org
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 02:02:37PM +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > We have moved packaging guidelines onto docs.fedoraproject.org[0]. > > If you find any error or would like to change something, don't hesitate to > > open ticket or submit pull request for packaging committee repo[1]. > > Hmmm, comparing > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_automatically_generated_dependencies > and > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Automatically_generated_dependencies > doesn't make me happy. That doesn't look too bad compared to https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Ada/. Raw markup is displayed instead of links, wildcard characters have been turned into stretches of bold font, while asterisks that were supposed to become bold font are displayed instead, HTML var tags have been removed and replaced with nothing at all, and there is inconsistent use of monospace font, inconsistent quotation marks, and a stray grave accent as a cherry on top. That's what happens when one writes documents in a haphazard ad-hoc markup language tied to a certain tool, and then tries to switch to another tool that expects another haphazard ad-hoc markup language. I was going to try to fix up the Ada guidelines. Obviously I need to be able to generate HTML from the .adoc file, because the only way to write in a haphazard ad-hoc language is to make haphazard ad-hoc changes, preview the result, and repeat until it looks good. Following the instructions in README.md I installed the package "podman" and ran "make". After downloading six blobs of unknown contents it failed with these error messages: ERRO[0232] could not find slirp4netns, the network namespace won't be configured: exec: "slirp4netns": executable file not found in $PATH error: getaddrinfo EAI_AGAIN asamalik.fedorapeople.org:443 I couldn't find any package that provides "slirp4netns", so that was a dead end. Then I tried the command "asciidoc", because README.md says that the guidelines are supposed to be written in Asciidoc. That produced even worse HTML than that at docs.fedoraproject.org, with plus signs everywhere and a partially mangled bullet list. Apparently the Asciidoc that these documents are written in isn't the Asciidoc that asciidoc understands. This was a disappointing experience. I thought the ability to merge changes with Git would make it easier to submit changes to the guidelines. Instead it seems to have become harder. In the wiki I could at least preview my changes. By the way, the way that Pagure tries to syntax-highlight the .adoc files is very confusing. I don't know which language Pagure tries to syntax-highlight – or rather which two languages, because the way it sprinkles colors over the file in the "blame" view is entirely different from what it does in the "blob" view – but it needs to be taught that these files aren't either of those languages. Björn Persson pgp99l39ORqmr.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signatur ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora Packaging Guidelines on docs.fedoraproject.org
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 14:02:37 +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > Hello everyone, Hello, > We have moved packaging guidelines onto docs.fedoraproject.org[0]. > If you find any error or would like to change something, don't hesitate to > open > ticket or submit pull request for packaging committee repo[1]. Thank you---that's really neat! Would other relatively static pages such as these also be migrated? - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group I ask because there are quite a few pages here which are also relatively static, and it may be slight confusing to new members looking to learn packaging if information is in two places: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Package_Maintainers -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD" https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Time zone: Europe/London signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora Packaging Guidelines on docs.fedoraproject.org
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 02:02:37PM +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote: … > I already said that before: I don't think we can tell packagers to use the > new guidelines page until the majority of formatting and content issues is > fixed. The new layout looks more user-friendly to me and could attract more new contributors. Although, TOC at the beginning of most pages does not get replaced here. Should it show some Table Of Contents? Instead, I see the letters TOC in italic font. Regards, Raphael ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora Packaging Guidelines on docs.fedoraproject.org
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 02:02:37PM +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > Hello everyone, > > We have moved packaging guidelines onto docs.fedoraproject.org[0]. > If you find any error or would like to change something, don't hesitate to > open ticket or submit pull request for packaging committee repo[1]. Hmmm, comparing https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_automatically_generated_dependencies and https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Automatically_generated_dependencies doesn't make me happy. I already said that before: I don't think we can tell packagers to use the new guidelines page until the majority of formatting and content issues is fixed. Zbyszek ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora Packaging Guidelines on docs.fedoraproject.org
I concur the landing page font is large. I recommend that the link emoji icon utilized in "Fedora Budget" and "Fedora's Otreachy Docs" is replaces with an image. It differs from platform to platform. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Friday, September 28, 2018 4:00 PM, Richard Shaw wrote: > Looks a touch on the big side fonts wise but looks really nice overall. > > Thanks, > Richard ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora Packaging Guidelines on docs.fedoraproject.org
Looks a touch on the big side fonts wise but looks really nice overall. Thanks, Richard ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora Packaging Guidelines on docs.fedoraproject.org
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 02:02:37PM +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > We have moved packaging guidelines onto docs.fedoraproject.org[0]. > If you find any error or would like to change something, don't hesitate to > open ticket or submit pull request for packaging committee repo[1]. This is amazing! Thanks everyone for all your work on this! -- Matthew Miller Fedora Project Leader ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
