Publican Issues

[Eric Christensen]

On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 00:12 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> Joshua Wulf wrote:
> Thanks Joshua,
> 
> > I think that Jeff and Chris are referring to this:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476471
> > 
> IIUC, this boils down to:
> 1) Publican creates a different documentation package for each Fedora
> Release as it considers them to be separate documents.  ie:
> Fedora-10-Security-Guide, Fedora-11-Security-Guide.
> 
> 2) This means a new package review for each documentation package each
> release.
> 
> If you're willing to go through a new review each release, there's no
> problem.

And that's okay for certain documents (i.e. Release Notes, User
Guide,...) that are tied directly to a specific release of Fedora.  The
Security Guide, however, is not.  I'd much prefer the Security Guide
being just that, the Fedora Security Guide and not have to go through
review for each release.

So while it might be nice to include a release number in the package for
some documents it is not appropriate for all.  Publican does not provide
that ability to not use the release number and if it did, and there were
writers who wanted to use the release numbering, I would have already
petitioned the FPC on behalf of the Docs Project to make the change.
So, no, the problem isn't with the FPC's decisions or current rules.

Eric
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-docs-list/attachments/20090326/1a84cb5c/attachment.sig>