[Fedora-electronic-lab] User documentation (was Re:Dead Upstream what should we do ?)

Shakthi Kannan shakthimaan at gmail.com
Sat Dec 5 05:31:30 UTC 2009


--- On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 1:36 AM, Chitlesh GOORAH
<chitlesh at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
| I would tend to opt for LaTex as most of our upstream developers like
| to keep their documentation in text format.

We agree to use this for all our documentation needs.

| Having that said, what should we do for other tools which upstream
| ships loads of documentation in OOo formats e.g kicad-doc ?

If we can export the OOo formats to LaTeX directly or through
intermediate formats like DocBook, we can maintain consistency.

| So here a decision should be made. If it was for me, pdf format is
| enough.


| Pointing to specific files would be great for the user, but hard on
| us. Each time upstream add/remove docs, the packager will have to
| update this yelp correctly.

Can this be done in the RPM packaging process?

We know the .spec file mentions the -doc files. If we are able to list
and put the location of all these -doc files for a package in a text
file, say package.guide, similar to a .desktop file, an application
can read all these package.guide files from a single directory (say,
/usr/share/guide/*.guide) and show it to the user.

This .guide file is important because it abstracts location of files
from the GUI help manager, so we can use it across different desktop

As long as it doesn't violate FHS, this will provide the user with
available documentation. FESCo needs to look at it? Maybe, if we
provide a prototype using FEL, we can get feedback and others' point
of view? Just a thought.

| "Design flows" is one of FEL's strengths. It would be difficult to
| push this upstream as many tools of different upstreams will fall in
| different flows. Hence we have to maintain it ourselves in our git.

Yes, we can maintain it as you have mentioned.


Shakthi Kannan

More information about the Fedora-electronic-lab-list mailing list