[Bug 427481] Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481





------- Additional Comments From petersen at redhat.com  2008-01-08 23:29 EST -------
I guess docbook-build-tools wouldn't be an good name anyway...

Having thought a little more about it and looked at the package more
here are my thoughts on the naming:
- first I think the initial reaction to the name from the Fedora point
  of view is that there are problems with both words in the name:
- "documentation" is vague: it can refer to many different things ranging
  from readme files under %doc, to manpages, to info or html included in the
  source (which might one day be generated using this package if they care for
  docbook), or manuals in docbook which I think is the main target of this
  package: we have lacked good documentation in Fedora to date. :)
- the "devel" suffix is usually not used for tools but subpackages of libraries
  with development files associated with C libraries, etc.
- I looked at our package naming guidelines and they were vague on this case.

But to give an extreme example it is a little like starting a new project
for a browser (or an editor) and calling it "browser" (or "editor").
"documentation-devel" is better than that of course, but naively it seems
it could be made a bit less generic without loosing its generality.

I understand the Red Hat Docs team have been using this package name internally
for several years and are pretty comfortable with it, and that you want to keep
this package generic (in the sense of commodity) to encourage others in the
community outside Fedora to use it for their international documentation needs.

If renaming the newly open-sourced project upstream is not an option
I might suggest at least adding some suffix, eg documentation-devel-tools,
to make the name slightly less generic.  I think it would be ok for the
package to obsolete or provide documentation-devel for backward compatibility
if necessary.

It might help also to see an example package that shows how it would
be used to get a better idea about it.  And to hear of about any plans 
to push documentation to fedora, etc to get a bigger picture. :)

If this package is positioned as the cornerstone of our documentation
infrastructure it might still be reasonable to keep a pretty general name.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.