Adam Lally wrote:
On 1/9/07, Marshall Schor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Good point. It's very easy to obtain the DocBook build environment -
just go to our SVN repository and extract the uima-docbooks project.
I think I agree we don't need to "distribute" this at all; just leave it
in SVN.
Are there any requirements for having 3rd party jars in SVN?
If we do that, it's not clear to me if we even need to distribute the
docbook sources. I suggest we not put the sources into our
"distribution" packages, but just put the results of the html and pdf
builds there. And maybe add something to a "README" that describes all
this, and says if you want to modify the sources, get the uima-docbooks
project from our SVN.
The advantage of putting the docbook sources in our source
distribution would be to eliminate confusion about SVN tags not
matching what was actually in the release (the same reasoning as for
source code).
-Adam
I don't think I was entirely clear in my last note. I'm +1 on
distributing the docbook sources of our documentation. It's part of our
code base, and I agree with Adam's reasoning about SVN tagging.
What I was hoping we could do was, distribute the docbook sources and
have instructions (on our website, with our distribution maybe) on where
to obtain the docbook build environment, and how to install it so our
docbook build works.
If it's easy enough to obtain the build environment from sources other
than our svn repository, that would be even better.
I just don't know enough about the docbook build. There may be good
reasons for wanting to check in a very specific version of the docbook
build environment, because it produces the best results for our
documentation.
Of course it is also very convenient to be able to run the docbook build
from eclipse without any special setup. However, if it means less third
party software in our svn repository, I'll put up with setting a
variable that points at an external docbook installation.
--Thilo
