From mmcallis at redhat.com Sun Jan 4 04:54:51 2009 From: mmcallis at redhat.com (Murray McAllister) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 14:54:51 +1000 Subject: [publican-list] ulinks failing when not using the full "http://www" URL. Message-ID: <4960411B.2040009@redhat.com> Tries to open "/home/mmcallis/test/testing/tmp/en-US/html/google.com." ...Maybe this one should not work, but I would have expected the following to: Tries to open "/home/mmcallis/test/testing/tmp/en-US/html/www.google.com" I don't remember this being how things always were, but my memory is not very good anymore :) From mmcallis at redhat.com Sun Jan 4 04:56:12 2009 From: mmcallis at redhat.com (Murray McAllister) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 14:56:12 +1000 Subject: [publican-list] Re: ulinks failing when not using the full "http://www" URL. In-Reply-To: <4960411B.2040009@redhat.com> References: <4960411B.2040009@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4960416C.2@redhat.com> Murray McAllister wrote: > > > Tries to open "/home/mmcallis/test/testing/tmp/en-US/html/google.com." > > ...Maybe this one should not work, but I would have expected the > following to: > > > > Tries to open "/home/mmcallis/test/testing/tmp/en-US/html/www.google.com" > > I don't remember this being how things always were, but my memory is not > very good anymore :) > publican-0.39-2.el5_2 publican-fedora-0.16-0.el5_2 and publican-0.39-0.fc10.noarch publican-fedora-0.16-0.fc10.noarch From stickster at gmail.com Sun Jan 4 15:20:51 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 10:20:51 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] Re: ulinks failing when not using the full "http://www" URL. In-Reply-To: <4960416C.2@redhat.com> References: <4960411B.2040009@redhat.com> <4960416C.2@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20090104152051.GB22038@localhost.localdomain> On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 02:56:12PM +1000, Murray McAllister wrote: > Murray McAllister wrote: >> >> >> Tries to open "/home/mmcallis/test/testing/tmp/en-US/html/google.com." >> >> ...Maybe this one should not work, but I would have expected the >> following to: >> >> >> >> Tries to open "/home/mmcallis/test/testing/tmp/en-US/html/www.google.com" >> >> I don't remember this being how things always were, but my memory is >> not very good anymore :) >> > publican-0.39-2.el5_2 > publican-fedora-0.16-0.el5_2 > > and > > publican-0.39-0.fc10.noarch > publican-fedora-0.16-0.fc10.noarch A URL really must include a protocol if you intend to search outside the local file system. Otherwise, how is any application supposed to tell the difference between the local file "command.com" and "http://command.com"? -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Jan 5 04:40:19 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 23:40:19 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 477573] minor formatting problems in Legal_Notice.xml In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901050440.n054eJ1W025926@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477573 Jeff Fearn changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |0.40 Resolution| |CURRENTRELEASE --- Comment #1 from Jeff Fearn 2009-01-04 23:40:17 EDT --- Tweaked clean_ids to add a return after country. Added white space between inline elements. -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Jan 5 04:49:51 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 23:49:51 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 476913] sanitise new appendix on Makefile Parameters In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901050449.n054np0N012289@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476913 Jeff Fearn changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Jan 5 05:28:21 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 00:28:21 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 475684] Find solution for using Glossaries with publican In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901050528.n055SLgh019626@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475684 Jeff Fearn changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(mospina at redhat.co | |m) --- Comment #2 from Jeff Fearn 2009-01-05 00:28:19 EDT --- Manuel, would a UTS #10 collation routine conforming to http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr10/ be sufficient to sort a flat glossary? i.e. a glosslist or glossary without glossdivs? e.g. of the form: Term1: definition1 Term2: definition2 Term3: definition3 Where TermX may or may not be translated, but definitionX is always translated. Cheers, Jeff. -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Jan 6 06:42:49 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 01:42:49 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 476884] publican User Guide unreadable because sidebar obscures text In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901060642.n066gnDJ025647@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476884 Jeff Fearn changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |0.40 Resolution| |CURRENTRELEASE --- Comment #6 from Jeff Fearn 2009-01-06 01:42:48 EDT --- Removed override of font size in TOC and reduced white space around TOC to balance out font size increase. -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Jan 12 00:55:45 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 19:55:45 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 475684] Find solution for using Glossaries with publican In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901120055.n0C0tj9u018630@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475684 Jeff Fearn changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(mospina at redhat.co |needinfo+ |m) | -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Jan 13 05:08:42 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:08:42 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 479794] image quality In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901130508.n0D58gtM000591@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479794 Dani changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dcoulson at redhat.com -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Jan 13 05:08:06 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:08:06 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 479794] New: image quality Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: image quality https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479794 Summary: image quality Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 Version: 5.2 Platform: i386 OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: low Priority: low Component: publican AssignedTo: jfearn at redhat.com ReportedBy: dcoulson at redhat.com QAContact: ecs-dev-list at redhat.com CC: publican-list at redhat.com Classification: Red Hat Description of problem: Loss of resolution in image quality when building books in pdf and html. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): publican-0.38-0.el5 Please contact me if further details are required. -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Jan 14 01:04:54 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 20:04:54 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 468305]
ignored In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901140104.n0E14suh019801@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468305 Eric Christensen changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |eric at christensenplace.us --- Comment #2 from Eric Christensen 2009-01-13 20:04:53 EDT --- Can we look at this, again, please? I have a need to be able to mark sections, chapters, and even paragraphs as "draft" or other classification. -- 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. From jfearn at redhat.com Wed Jan 14 01:29:27 2009 From: jfearn at redhat.com (Jeff Fearn) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 11:29:27 +1000 Subject: [publican-list] Re:
ignored In-Reply-To: <200901140104.n0E14suh019801@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> References: <200901140104.n0E14suh019801@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Message-ID: <496D3FF7.8020403@redhat.com> bugzilla at redhat.com wrote: > Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional > comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468305 > > > Eric Christensen changed: > > What |Removed |Added > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > CC| |eric at christensenplace.us > > > > > --- Comment #2 from Eric Christensen 2009-01-13 20:04:53 EDT --- > Can we look at this, again, please? I have a need to be able to mark sections, > chapters, and even paragraphs as "draft" or other classification. > I don't think bugzilla is the place to ask such questions, it just clutters the bugs. Can you use remarks to flag content that needs to be reviewed? It was made _very_ clear to me that having draft content inside non-draft content was a misnomer. Cheers, Jeff. From eric at christensenplace.us Wed Jan 14 03:19:44 2009 From: eric at christensenplace.us (Eric Christensen) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 22:19:44 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] Re:
ignored In-Reply-To: <496D3FF7.8020403@redhat.com> References: <200901140104.n0E14suh019801@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> <496D3FF7.8020403@redhat.com> Message-ID: <496D59D0.1020608@christensenplace.us> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jeff Fearn wrote: > Can you use remarks to flag content that needs to be reviewed? > > It was made _very_ clear to me that having draft content inside > non-draft content was a misnomer. > > Cheers, Jeff. Jeff, Here's the problem. If you have a document that is completely draft then you could "un-draft" portions of the document that have been properly checked. This would give readers the information but also the knowledge that it might not be correct. This means you wouldn't have to edit out portions that are probably correct but haven't been vetted yet. I could see this being important not for draft but for message classifications where each particular paragraph might need to be flagged for sensitivity. Probably not a concern in Fedora but I could see using Publican outside of Fedora. Thanks, Eric -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkltWc4ACgkQfQTSQL0MFMHi7wCgnhA5H5ysp35h7qTeZ/lgrwIa gjgAn2CQBiWbUsZrYBtkVbQaXpEaPssD =Aqve -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jfearn at redhat.com Wed Jan 14 04:15:51 2009 From: jfearn at redhat.com (Jeff Fearn) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 14:15:51 +1000 Subject: [publican-list] Re:
ignored In-Reply-To: <496D5EE1.9070600@redhat.com> References: <200901140104.n0E14suh019801@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> <496D3FF7.8020403@redhat.com> <496D59D0.1020608@christensenplace.us> <496D5EE1.9070600@redhat.com> Message-ID: <496D66F7.5030607@redhat.com> David O'Brien wrote: > Eric Christensen wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Jeff Fearn wrote: >> > Can you use remarks to flag content that needs to be reviewed? >> >>> It was made _very_ clear to me that having draft content inside >>> non-draft content was a misnomer. >>> >>> Cheers, Jeff. >>> >> >> Jeff, >> Here's the problem. If you have a document that is completely draft >> then you could "un-draft" portions of the document that have been >> properly checked. This would give readers the information but also the >> knowledge that it might not be correct. This means you wouldn't have to >> edit out portions that are probably correct but haven't been vetted yet. >> >> I could see this being important not for draft but for message >> classifications where each particular paragraph might need to be flagged >> for sensitivity. Probably not a concern in Fedora but I could see using >> Publican outside of Fedora. >> >> Thanks, >> Eric >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) >> Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org >> >> iEYEARECAAYFAkltWc4ACgkQfQTSQL0MFMHi7wCgnhA5H5ysp35h7qTeZ/lgrwIa >> gjgAn2CQBiWbUsZrYBtkVbQaXpEaPssD >> =Aqve >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> >> _______________________________________________ >> publican-list mailing list >> publican-list at redhat.com >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/publican-list >> Wiki: https://fedorahosted.org/publican >> > I'm coming in late to this discussion, but I think the idea is to mark > the entire document draft, and then use tags to identify the > specific sections that have yet to be verified. As each identified > section is verified, remove the tags until none remain, at > which time you can remove the DRAFT status. > > Jeff, pls correct me if this is not the idea. Hi David, you are correct. I can't remember the exact arguments against being able to mark bits of your document as draft, so I will do a poor job of para phrasing! When you remove draft from the root node, you are saying the book, in it's entirety, is complete. You can not have incomplete bits in a complete book, therefore marking only bits of a book as draft is a mixed metaphor and is wrong. That's probably a pretty dumb explanation of the reasoning, but I've been sick for almost 2 weeks now and that's all I've got. Cheers, Jeff. P.S. David for some reason your email to the list got bounced, I'll get Murray to have a look at it. From kwade at redhat.com Wed Jan 14 17:46:50 2009 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 09:46:50 -0800 Subject: [publican-list] Re:
ignored In-Reply-To: <496D66F7.5030607@redhat.com> References: <200901140104.n0E14suh019801@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> <496D3FF7.8020403@redhat.com> <496D59D0.1020608@christensenplace.us> <496D5EE1.9070600@redhat.com> <496D66F7.5030607@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20090114174650.GE7770@calliope.phig.org> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 02:15:51PM +1000, Jeff Fearn wrote: > When you remove draft from the root node, you are saying the book, in > it's entirety, is complete. You can not have incomplete bits in a > complete book, therefore marking only bits of a book as draft is a mixed > metaphor and is wrong. This is open content, where we want to release early and often. We don't try to release 100% bug free software, either. It should be possible to add beta/draft content to a document and mark it as such. - Karsten -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener http://quaid.fedorapeople.org AD0E0C41 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jfearn at redhat.com Wed Jan 14 22:04:19 2009 From: jfearn at redhat.com (Jeff Fearn) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 08:04:19 +1000 Subject: [publican-list] Re:
ignored In-Reply-To: <20090114174650.GE7770@calliope.phig.org> References: <200901140104.n0E14suh019801@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> <496D3FF7.8020403@redhat.com> <496D59D0.1020608@christensenplace.us> <496D5EE1.9070600@redhat.com> <496D66F7.5030607@redhat.com> <20090114174650.GE7770@calliope.phig.org> Message-ID: <496E6163.7050702@redhat.com> Karsten Wade wrote: > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 02:15:51PM +1000, Jeff Fearn wrote: > >> When you remove draft from the root node, you are saying the book, in >> it's entirety, is complete. You can not have incomplete bits in a >> complete book, therefore marking only bits of a book as draft is a mixed >> metaphor and is wrong. > > This is open content, where we want to release early and often. We > don't try to release 100% bug free software, either. It should be > possible to add beta/draft content to a document and mark it as such. Firstly, documentation isn't software and you can't treat them the same way; but even if you were going to do that, this statement is wrong. You don't mark 2 or 3 functions in your software as beta, you mark the whole thing as beta. Likewise you don't mark 2 or 3 blocks of text as draft, you mark the whole thing draft. You can use remark tags for a more localised way of marking a block to be reviewed. The remarks have confronting colours and will stand out from surrounding text. Furthermore if you put the remark in the title of a block that appears in the TOC then the remark gets placed, in the confronting colour, in the TOC, so people can see in the TOC where to go to review. I don't think we should break what appears to be the publishing industry use of draft when the remark tag should be sufficient for this use case. Cheers, Jeff. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Jan 15 02:56:24 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 21:56:24 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 469286] screen inside para outputs invalid XHTML In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901150256.n0F2uOXw008850@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469286 --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System 2009-01-14 21:56:24 EDT --- publican-0.39-0.fc9, publican-fedora-0.16-0.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Jan 15 02:56:16 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 21:56:16 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 468789] build error from xmlclean when trying to build the installation guide In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901150256.n0F2uGlQ008801@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468789 --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System 2009-01-14 21:56:15 EDT --- publican-0.39-0.fc9, publican-fedora-0.16-0.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Jan 15 02:56:19 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 21:56:19 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 467654] corners missing on when it contains or In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901150256.n0F2uJ9F008829@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467654 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System 2009-01-14 21:56:18 EDT --- publican-0.39-0.fc9, publican-fedora-0.16-0.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Jan 15 02:56:10 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 21:56:10 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 467368] border does not match image in html In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901150256.n0F2uAAx024452@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467368 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System 2009-01-14 21:56:10 EDT --- publican-0.39-0.fc9, publican-fedora-0.16-0.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Jan 15 02:56:22 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 21:56:22 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 469595] RFE: Improve support for In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901150256.n0F2uMWi024503@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469595 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System 2009-01-14 21:56:21 EDT --- publican-0.39-0.fc9, publican-fedora-0.16-0.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Jan 15 02:56:32 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 21:56:32 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 471776] create_book --article does not work. Please remove from help. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901150256.n0F2uWaV024559@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471776 --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System 2009-01-14 21:56:31 EDT --- publican-0.39-0.fc9, publican-fedora-0.16-0.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Jan 15 02:56:27 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 21:56:27 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 461708] unsupported "developer content relevant" tags In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901150256.n0F2uRn5024529@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461708 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System 2009-01-14 21:56:26 EDT --- publican-0.39-0.fc9, publican-fedora-0.16-0.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Jan 15 02:56:58 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 21:56:58 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 468305]
ignored In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901150256.n0F2uwrJ009409@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468305 --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System 2009-01-14 21:56:57 EDT --- publican-0.39-0.fc9, publican-fedora-0.16-0.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Jan 15 02:56:30 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 21:56:30 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 461864] Add and to list of "known tags" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901150256.n0F2uUqB008876@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461864 --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System 2009-01-14 21:56:29 EDT --- publican-0.39-0.fc9, publican-fedora-0.16-0.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Jan 15 02:56:43 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 21:56:43 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 469986] pdf display of revision history lacks spacing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901150256.n0F2uhH5009257@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469986 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System 2009-01-14 21:56:42 EDT --- publican-0.39-0.fc9, publican-fedora-0.16-0.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Jan 15 02:57:08 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 21:57:08 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 472627] HTML: black square on screen when using "Next" and "Previous" to navigate In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901150257.n0F2v8km009450@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472627 --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System 2009-01-14 21:57:07 EDT --- publican-0.39-0.fc9, publican-fedora-0.16-0.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Jan 15 02:56:56 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 21:56:56 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 469298] RFE: Improve support for tags In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901150256.n0F2uurl009391@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469298 --- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System 2009-01-14 21:56:55 EDT --- publican-0.39-0.fc9, publican-fedora-0.16-0.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Jan 15 02:57:03 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 21:57:03 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 472482] results in a warning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901150257.n0F2v3Zt025164@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472482 --- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System 2009-01-14 21:57:03 EDT --- publican-0.39-0.fc9, publican-fedora-0.16-0.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Jan 15 02:56:51 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 21:56:51 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 461870] Update list of known tags In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901150256.n0F2upPi025000@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461870 --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System 2009-01-14 21:56:50 EDT --- publican-0.39-0.fc9, publican-fedora-0.16-0.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Jan 15 02:56:46 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 21:56:46 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 471144] RFE: please support function tag In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901150256.n0F2ukll024831@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471144 --- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System 2009-01-14 21:56:45 EDT --- publican-0.39-0.fc9, publican-fedora-0.16-0.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Jan 15 02:56:48 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 21:56:48 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 470967] sub-title is used as the menu item for books In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901150256.n0F2um6c024915@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470967 --- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System 2009-01-14 21:56:48 EDT --- publican-0.39-0.fc9, publican-fedora-0.16-0.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Jan 15 02:57:05 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 21:57:05 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 472500] java annotations in sample code causes problems for In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901150257.n0F2v5kl025186@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472500 --- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System 2009-01-14 21:57:05 EDT --- publican-0.39-0.fc9, publican-fedora-0.16-0.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Jan 15 02:57:01 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 21:57:01 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 462668] PDF: inconsistent numbering for ulinks and footnotes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901150257.n0F2v18n025137@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462668 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System 2009-01-14 21:57:00 EDT --- publican-0.39-0.fc9, publican-fedora-0.16-0.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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. From jwulf at redhat.com Fri Jan 16 00:48:36 2009 From: jwulf at redhat.com (Joshua Wulf) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 10:48:36 +1000 Subject: [publican-list] tables inside paras Message-ID: <496FD964.4060707@redhat.com> I'm using a formalpara and putting a table inside the para section. Publican seems to be removing the "empty" para tag and breaking my build. Here's the source: https://svn.devel.redhat.com/repos/ecs/JON/2.1/Managed_Resources_Guide Expected behaviour? Any suggestions on an alternative approach? -- Joshua J Wulf Engineering Content Services Red Hat Asia Pacific eml: jwulf at redhat.com tel: +61 (0)7 3514 8140 mob: +61 (0)431 929 675 tmz: GMT +10 (0) - omit when dialling internationally From lbrindle at redhat.com Fri Jan 16 00:51:06 2009 From: lbrindle at redhat.com (Lana Brindley) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 11:51:06 +1100 Subject: [publican-list] tables inside paras In-Reply-To: <496FD964.4060707@redhat.com> References: <496FD964.4060707@redhat.com> Message-ID: <496FD9FA.3020204@redhat.com> Joshua Wulf wrote: > I'm using a formalpara and putting a table inside the para section. > Publican seems to be removing the "empty" para tag and breaking my build. > > Here's the source: > https://svn.devel.redhat.com/repos/ecs/JON/2.1/Managed_Resources_Guide > > Expected behaviour? Any suggestions on an alternative approach? > > > Josh, Just a thought - have you tried putting it inside a normal para (rather than inside a formalpara)? I know that s nested under s tend to act very differently to ordinary s. Something like this maybe: This is a formal para This a sentence about the table Table stuff
 Just a thought. L -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: lbrindle.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 976 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jfearn at redhat.com Fri Jan 16 00:59:26 2009 From: jfearn at redhat.com (Jeff Fearn) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 10:59:26 +1000 Subject: [publican-list] tables inside paras In-Reply-To: <496FD964.4060707@redhat.com> References: <496FD964.4060707@redhat.com> Message-ID: <496FDBEE.4060408@redhat.com> Joshua Wulf wrote: > I'm using a formalpara and putting a table inside the para section. > Publican seems to be removing the "empty" para tag and breaking my build. > > Here's the source: > https://svn.devel.redhat.com/repos/ecs/JON/2.1/Managed_Resources_Guide > > Expected behaviour? Any suggestions on an alternative approach? > > > It looks like you are only using the formal para to get an extra title, why not use bridgehead instead? http://documentation-stage.bne.redhat.com/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_MRG/1.1/html/Grid_User_Guide/ Overview ... Cheers, Jeff. -- Jeff Fearn Software Engineer Engineering Operations Red Hat, Inc Freedom ... courage ... Commitment ... ACCOUNTABILITY From jwulf at redhat.com Fri Jan 16 01:13:57 2009 From: jwulf at redhat.com (Joshua Wulf) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 11:13:57 +1000 Subject: [publican-list] tables inside paras In-Reply-To: <496FDBEE.4060408@redhat.com> References: <496FD964.4060707@redhat.com> <496FDBEE.4060408@redhat.com> Message-ID: <496FDF55.3060306@redhat.com> Jeff Fearn wrote: > > It looks like you are only using the formal para to get an extra > title, why not use bridgehead instead? > > http://documentation-stage.bne.redhat.com/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_MRG/1.1/html/Grid_User_Guide/ > > > Overview >
... > > > Cheers, Jeff. > Indeed that's what I'm doing. Thanks for the tip Jeff. -- Joshua J Wulf Engineering Content Services Red Hat Asia Pacific eml: jwulf at redhat.com tel: +61 (0)7 3514 8140 mob: +61 (0)431 929 675 tmz: GMT +10 (0) - omit when dialling internationally From jwulf at redhat.com Fri Jan 16 01:15:10 2009 From: jwulf at redhat.com (Joshua Wulf) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 11:15:10 +1000 Subject: [publican-list] only xref inside para Message-ID: <496FDF9E.80708@redhat.com> Looks like Publican treats this as an empty para tag as well: Child Resource Types Expected behaviour? Any suggestion? -- Joshua J Wulf Engineering Content Services Red Hat Asia Pacific eml: jwulf at redhat.com tel: +61 (0)7 3514 8140 mob: +61 (0)431 929 675 tmz: GMT +10 (0) - omit when dialling internationally From jfearn at redhat.com Fri Jan 16 01:34:03 2009 From: jfearn at redhat.com (Jeff Fearn) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 11:34:03 +1000 Subject: [publican-list] tables inside paras In-Reply-To: <496FDF55.3060306@redhat.com> References: <496FD964.4060707@redhat.com> <496FDBEE.4060408@redhat.com> <496FDF55.3060306@redhat.com> Message-ID: <496FE40B.8080209@redhat.com> Joshua Wulf wrote: > Jeff Fearn wrote: >> >> It looks like you are only using the formal para to get an extra >> title, why not use bridgehead instead? >> >> http://documentation-stage.bne.redhat.com/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_MRG/1.1/html/Grid_User_Guide/ >> >> >> Overview >>
... >> >> >> Cheers, Jeff. >> > Indeed that's what I'm doing. Thanks for the tip Jeff. > I'm going to blame my medication for that url ... http://www.docbook.org/tdg/en/html/bridgehead.html Cheers, Jeff. -- Jeff Fearn Software Engineer Engineering Operations Red Hat, Inc Freedom ... courage ... Commitment ... ACCOUNTABILITY From lbrindle at redhat.com Fri Jan 16 01:32:12 2009 From: lbrindle at redhat.com (Lana Brindley) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 12:32:12 +1100 Subject: [publican-list] tables inside paras In-Reply-To: <496FE40B.8080209@redhat.com> References: <496FD964.4060707@redhat.com> <496FDBEE.4060408@redhat.com> <496FDF55.3060306@redhat.com> <496FE40B.8080209@redhat.com> Message-ID: <496FE39C.1090205@redhat.com> Jeff Fearn wrote: > Joshua Wulf wrote: >> Jeff Fearn wrote: >>> >>> It looks like you are only using the formal para to get an extra >>> title, why not use bridgehead instead? >>> >>> http://documentation-stage.bne.redhat.com/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_MRG/1.1/html/Grid_User_Guide/ >>> >>> >>> Overview >>>
... >>> >>> >>> Cheers, Jeff. >>> >> Indeed that's what I'm doing. Thanks for the tip Jeff. >> > > I'm going to blame my medication for that url ... > > http://www.docbook.org/tdg/en/html/bridgehead.html > > Cheers, Jeff. > I did wonder what you were doing poking around in my docs ... ! L -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: lbrindle.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 976 bytes Desc: not available URL: From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Jan 16 06:12:38 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 01:12:38 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 476913] sanitise new appendix on Makefile Parameters In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901160612.n0G6CcoF005524@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476913 --- Comment #1 from Brian Forte 2009-01-16 01:12:37 EDT --- Make_Parameters.xml has been fully copy-edited and partially edited. Further edits pending. -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Jan 16 07:40:26 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 02:40:26 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 476913] sanitise new appendix on Makefile Parameters In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901160740.n0G7eQjf000539@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476913 --- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System 2009-01-16 02:40:25 EDT --- publican-fedora-0.17-0.fc10,publican-0.40-0.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/publican-fedora-0.17-0.fc10,publican-0.40-0.fc10 -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Jan 16 07:40:38 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 02:40:38 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 476884] publican User Guide unreadable because sidebar obscures text In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901160740.n0G7ecoo019081@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476884 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System 2009-01-16 02:40:38 EDT --- publican-fedora-0.17-0.fc10,publican-0.40-0.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/publican-fedora-0.17-0.fc10,publican-0.40-0.fc10 -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Jan 16 07:40:42 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 02:40:42 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 477573] minor formatting problems in Legal_Notice.xml In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901160740.n0G7egdh019114@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477573 --- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System 2009-01-16 02:40:41 EDT --- publican-fedora-0.17-0.fc10,publican-0.40-0.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/publican-fedora-0.17-0.fc10,publican-0.40-0.fc10 -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Jan 16 07:40:23 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 02:40:23 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 474077] syntax highlighting bug in java code samples for "number" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901160740.n0G7eNKc019025@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474077 --- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System 2009-01-16 02:40:23 EDT --- publican-fedora-0.17-0.fc10,publican-0.40-0.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/publican-fedora-0.17-0.fc10,publican-0.40-0.fc10 -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Jan 16 07:43:24 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 02:43:24 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 476884] publican User Guide unreadable because sidebar obscures text In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901160743.n0G7hOk0001219@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476884 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System 2009-01-16 02:43:24 EDT --- publican-fedora-0.17-0.fc9,publican-0.40-0.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/publican-fedora-0.17-0.fc9,publican-0.40-0.fc9 -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Jan 16 07:43:05 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 02:43:05 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 474077] syntax highlighting bug in java code samples for "number" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901160743.n0G7h5n7001022@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474077 --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System 2009-01-16 02:43:05 EDT --- publican-fedora-0.17-0.fc9,publican-0.40-0.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/publican-fedora-0.17-0.fc9,publican-0.40-0.fc9 -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Jan 16 07:43:17 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 02:43:17 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 476913] sanitise new appendix on Makefile Parameters In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901160743.n0G7hHBC019382@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476913 --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System 2009-01-16 02:43:17 EDT --- publican-fedora-0.17-0.fc9,publican-0.40-0.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/publican-fedora-0.17-0.fc9,publican-0.40-0.fc9 -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Jan 16 07:43:12 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 02:43:12 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 477573] minor formatting problems in Legal_Notice.xml In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901160743.n0G7hC8g019360@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477573 --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System 2009-01-16 02:43:12 EDT --- publican-fedora-0.17-0.fc9,publican-0.40-0.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/publican-fedora-0.17-0.fc9,publican-0.40-0.fc9 -- 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. From jfearn at redhat.com Fri Jan 16 07:51:48 2009 From: jfearn at redhat.com (Jeff Fearn) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 17:51:48 +1000 Subject: [publican-list] 0.40 in testing Message-ID: <49703C94.7060802@redhat.com> Just in case you missed the meaning of the BZ spam, 0.40 has hit the update system. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/publican-fedora-0.17-0.fc10,publican-0.40-0.fc10 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/publican-fedora-0.17-0.fc9,publican-0.40-0.fc9 It requires 3 votes for these to be pushed from testing to updates, so if you have F9 or F10 please test the updates and vote. Cheers, Jeff. -- Jeff Fearn Software Engineer Engineering Operations Red Hat, Inc Freedom ... courage ... Commitment ... ACCOUNTABILITY From eric at christensenplace.us Fri Jan 16 17:18:35 2009 From: eric at christensenplace.us (Eric Christensen) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 12:18:35 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] 0.40 in testing In-Reply-To: <49703C94.7060802@redhat.com> References: <49703C94.7060802@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1232126315.3311.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> I'll check this later today. - Eric On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 17:51 +1000, Jeff Fearn wrote: > Just in case you missed the meaning of the BZ spam, 0.40 has hit the update system. > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/publican-fedora-0.17-0.fc10,publican-0.40-0.fc10 > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/publican-fedora-0.17-0.fc9,publican-0.40-0.fc9 > > It requires 3 votes for these to be pushed from testing to updates, so if you have > F9 or F10 please test the updates and vote. > > Cheers, Jeff. > -------------- 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: From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Jan 16 23:42:47 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 18:42:47 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 476913] sanitise new appendix on Makefile Parameters In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901162342.n0GNglWd007362@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476913 Fedora Update System changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |ON_QA --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System 2009-01-16 18:42:47 EDT --- publican-fedora-0.17-0.fc10, publican-0.40-0.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update publican-fedora publican'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-0624 -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Jan 16 23:44:50 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 18:44:50 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 476913] sanitise new appendix on Makefile Parameters In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901162344.n0GNio9A025031@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476913 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System 2009-01-16 18:44:49 EDT --- publican-fedora-0.17-0.fc9, publican-0.40-0.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing-newkey update publican-fedora publican'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2009-0639 -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Jan 20 04:39:47 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 23:39:47 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 475684] Find solution for using Glossaries with publican In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901200439.n0K4dliC006014@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475684 Jeff Fearn changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo+ |needinfo?(mospina at redhat.co | |m) -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Jan 20 04:37:18 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 23:37:18 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 475684] Find solution for using Glossaries with publican In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901200437.n0K4bIO1019850@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475684 --- Comment #3 from Jeff Fearn 2009-01-19 23:37:16 EDT --- Oops, I buggered up the flags, still need info from Manuel. -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Jan 20 05:38:24 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 00:38:24 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 480721] New: Banned tags and translations considerations need to be added to Users Guide Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Banned tags and translations considerations need to be added to Users Guide https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480721 Summary: Banned tags and translations considerations need to be added to Users Guide Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 Version: 5.5 Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: publican AssignedTo: bforte at redhat.com ReportedBy: jfearn at redhat.com QAContact: ecs-dev-list at redhat.com CC: publican-list at redhat.com Classification: Red Hat Target Release: --- Description of problem: The banned tags, and attributes, should be documented in the Users Guide. Part of this relates to translation. Section 3.3.7 Book_Name.ent contains info on why entities are bad for translation, the tags and attributes banned because of l10n issues have very similar reasoning. Since some tags are banned because they break PDF generation it might be worth noting when these were last tested so when new versions of FOP come out someone might check to see if it's still valid to ban it. e.g. nested tables like entrytbl ruin PDF layout, but it may be fixed in FOP sometime. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 0.40 -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Jan 20 05:50:52 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 00:50:52 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 480721] Banned tags and translations considerations need to be added to Users Guide In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901200550.n0K5oqUY032359@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480721 --- Comment #1 from Brian Forte 2009-01-20 00:50:51 EDT --- Urtext for this is on the ECS wiki at Note to self: bforte also has a ready-to-roll XML version of the above stored locally: ~/documents/red hat/svn/Internal/5.0/Style_Guide/en-US/Which_XML_Tag_Should_I_Use.xml Other notes to add to this (from irc discussions with jfearn): All questions of the reasoning behind this aside, banning attributes like xreflabel has the following practical consequence: The Secret to Eternal Life The secret to eternal life is? [more deathless prose here] ?see >xref linkend="ch03"> for details. Will be transformed into HTML such that the displayed text of the resultant anchor tag is and can only be ?Chapter 3: The Secret to Eternal Life?. That is, you can?t change the xref?s linkend title (so to speak). -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Jan 20 06:45:58 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 01:45:58 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 480730] New: text re make clean_ids in variable list of 3.5 Building a Book is incorrect. Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: text re make clean_ids in variable list of 3.5 Building a Book is incorrect. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480730 Summary: text re make clean_ids in variable list of 3.5 Building a Book is incorrect. Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 Version: 5.2 Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: publican AssignedTo: bforte at redhat.com ReportedBy: bforte at redhat.com QAContact: ecs-dev-list at redhat.com CC: publican-list at redhat.com Classification: Red Hat Target Release: --- Description of problem: The text describing the result of running make clean_ids is incorrect. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 0.40 How reproducible: 100% (it's always wrong, no matter how many times I read it). Steps to Reproduce: 1. Read Actual results: 1. Note it is wrong. Expected results: 1. it is right. Additional info: A corrected text is ready for xml-ification at ~/documents/red hat/svn/Internal/5.0/Style_Guide/en-US/make clean_ids -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Jan 20 06:53:16 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 01:53:16 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 475684] Find solution for using Glossaries with publican In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901200653.n0K6rGUs010689@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475684 Manuel Ospina changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ccheng at redhat.com -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Jan 20 06:59:57 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 01:59:57 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 475684] Find solution for using Glossaries with publican In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901200659.n0K6xvUg011555@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475684 Manuel Ospina changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(mospina at redhat.co | |m) | --- Comment #4 from Manuel Ospina 2009-01-20 01:59:56 EDT --- It would be sufficient for a phonetic alphabet. I'm not sure how it would work in other systems. How does this algorithm sort non-alphabetical writing systems? I have added Chester for his opinion. (In reply to comment #2) > Manuel, would a UTS #10 collation routine conforming to > http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr10/ be sufficient to sort a flat glossary? > > i.e. a glosslist or glossary without glossdivs? > > e.g. of the form: > > Term1: definition1 > Term2: definition2 > Term3: definition3 > > Where TermX may or may not be translated, but definitionX is always translated. > > Cheers, Jeff. -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Jan 20 07:11:09 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 02:11:09 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 475684] Find solution for using Glossaries with publican In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901200711.n0K7B9Xa013970@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475684 --- Comment #5 from Chester Cheng 2009-01-20 02:11:08 EDT --- Non-alphabetical characters are in "Symbols". I guess it's in ASCII order. To me glossary is quite important. (In reply to comment #4) > It would be sufficient for a phonetic alphabet. I'm not sure how it would work > in other systems. How does this algorithm sort non-alphabetical writing > systems? > I have added Chester for his opinion. > -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Jan 21 00:38:39 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 19:38:39 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 475684] Find solution for using Glossaries with publican In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901210038.n0L0cdfP006448@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475684 --- Comment #6 from Jeff Fearn 2009-01-20 19:38:39 EDT --- I had a chat to Asgeir and he believes that TR10 collation should be sufficient to sort mixed language content in the correct order. I suggest: 1: Package Unicode::Collate 2: Use Unicode::Collate in cleanXml to sort the glosslist on glossterm after the translated XML has been cleaned. 3: Remove the ban on glosslist 4: Consider banning glossdiv as it can have mixed language content at multiple levels. This breaks l10n layout. There is no time frame for this ATM due to work on RHTS. -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Jan 21 00:59:13 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 19:59:13 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 475684] Find solution for using Glossaries with publican In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901210059.n0L0xDnT001839@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475684 --- Comment #7 from David O'Brien 2009-01-20 19:59:12 EDT --- Can we remove the ban sooner rather than later? I ask because, afaik, the only (RH) books that use glossaries are not translated yet. Is it possible to apply these bans on a brand basis? This way I can still update publican to take advantage of fixes and enhancements without removing my glossary. There are glossaries in the IDM doc, none of which is translated. IPA doc is scheduled for translation in the next release, but that is not for some time. The rest of the IDM doc (Directory Server, Cert. System, etc.) is not scheduled for translation. I *think* the oVirt doc uses glossaries, but I don't know what translation plans exist. cheers David -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Jan 21 05:10:40 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 00:10:40 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 475684] Find solution for using Glossaries with publican In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901210510.n0L5Aeod028762@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475684 --- Comment #8 from Jeff Fearn 2009-01-21 00:10:38 EDT --- (In reply to comment #7) > Can we remove the ban sooner rather than later? lol no. The mere possibility that there _may_ be a fix at some unknown time in the future is not a sane reason to change anything now. > I ask because, afaik, the only (RH) books that use glossaries are not > translated yet. Is it possible to apply these bans on a brand basis? Brands already control this by setting STRICT. Red Hat brands set STRICT, common, fedora, etc brands do not set STRICT. Non-STRICT brands get a warning instead of an error about these things. -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Jan 21 06:21:52 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 01:21:52 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 475684] Find solution for using Glossaries with publican In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901210621.n0L6LqKG002831@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475684 --- Comment #9 from David O'Brien 2009-01-21 01:21:52 EDT --- This is not something that is getting fixed. This is something that is getting banned due to opinions. The mere possibility that someone might add a glossary to a book that is going to get translated is not a sane reason to ban the necessary tags in the first place. I thought STRICT settings were involved in how this was treated but wasn't sure, thanks. -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Jan 21 21:32:39 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:32:39 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 476913] sanitise new appendix on Makefile Parameters In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901212132.n0LLWdlw012857@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476913 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System 2009-01-21 16:32:39 EDT --- publican-fedora-0.17-0.fc10, publican-0.40-0.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Jan 21 21:32:56 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:32:56 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 477573] minor formatting problems in Legal_Notice.xml In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901212132.n0LLWuRt012966@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477573 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System 2009-01-21 16:32:55 EDT --- publican-fedora-0.17-0.fc10, publican-0.40-0.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Jan 21 21:32:37 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:32:37 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 474077] syntax highlighting bug in java code samples for "number" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901212132.n0LLWbDw012835@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474077 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System 2009-01-21 16:32:36 EDT --- publican-fedora-0.17-0.fc10, publican-0.40-0.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Jan 21 21:32:53 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:32:53 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 476884] publican User Guide unreadable because sidebar obscures text In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901212132.n0LLWrDm023967@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476884 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System 2009-01-21 16:32:52 EDT --- publican-fedora-0.17-0.fc10, publican-0.40-0.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Jan 21 22:27:41 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 17:27:41 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 475684] Find solution for using Glossaries with publican In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901212227.n0LMRfkG006669@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475684 --- Comment #10 from Jeff Fearn 2009-01-21 17:27:40 EDT --- (In reply to comment #9) > This is not something that is getting fixed. It breaks our ability to translate content, so from any perspective that doesn't ignore translation it is broken and needs to be fixed. > This is something that is getting > banned due to opinions. I think it's highly insulting that you insinuate we have not done due diligence on this functionality. It takes in to account all aspects of the Documentation work flow; our customers expectations, and the real history and decisions of the past that have positively and negatively affected the Docs team and Red Hat. > The mere possibility that someone might add a glossary > to a book that is going to get translated is not a sane reason to ban the > necessary tags in the first place. It is not acceptable to break translation work flow regardless of the current translation status of a particular work. It is a sane policy given the volume of content, the size of the team we work in, and that ignoring translation work flow has bitten us in the ass previously and it cost us significantly to rectify that short sightedness. I suppose if you don't have to care about the other people in the team and you chose to ignore that this exact same attitude has occurred before and cost us dearly, then sure, maybe we are just being silly. -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Jan 28 03:55:59 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 22:55:59 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 482784] New: improve presentation in final pdf, html, and html-single builds Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: improve presentation in final pdf, html, and html-single builds https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=482784 Summary: improve presentation in final pdf, html, and html-single builds Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 Version: 5.3 Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: publican AssignedTo: jfearn at redhat.com ReportedBy: ddomingo at redhat.com QAContact: ecs-dev-list at redhat.com CC: publican-list at redhat.com Classification: Red Hat Target Release: --- Description of problem: the presentation of and all valid nested tags could be improved through the following: ** instead of using "Name" as a primary header, use the string tagged blah (at least in html, html-single, and pdf) ** "Synopsis" header is bigger than "Name" in html and html-single ** in pdf, each page only contains one . perhaps we could fit as many entries in a page as possible? ** indent , , and other sections nested in to emphasize "ownership" and division between reference entries. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): publican-fedora-0.17-0.el5 publican-0.41-3.el5 publican-jboss-0.17-0.el5 publican-redhat-0.18-0.el5 publican-ovirt-0.6-0.el5 publican-gimp-0.1-0.t3.el5 publican-doc-0.41-3.el5 How reproducible: the following source book is composed entirely of entries: https://svn.devel.redhat.com/repos/ecs/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/5.3/Tapset_Reference_Guide/ Steps to Reproduce: 1. Check out SVN repo: https://svn.devel.redhat.com/repos/ecs/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/5.3/Tapset_Reference_Guide/ 2. run make pdf-en-US html-en-US html-single-en-US. 3. inspect final builds. Actual results: ** "Name" is used as the main header for each reference entry in the final build ** in html and html-single, font for "Synopsis" header is larger than all other headers, even though it's a nested header ** in PDF, it's one page per reference entry. ** in all builds, nested headers and sections are not indented. Desired results: ** Instead of "Name", use the string tagged blah as the main header. ** shrink the "Synopsis" font to be the same size as all the others ** in PDF, fit as much content as possible in a page ** in all builds, indent nested headers and content to emphasize nesting (the same way we indent all nested content in a ). Additional info: -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Jan 28 04:14:29 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 23:14:29 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 482784] improve presentation in final pdf, html, and html-single builds In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901280414.n0S4ETDQ012315@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=482784 Jeff Fearn changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bforte at redhat.com -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Jan 28 13:41:53 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 08:41:53 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 482784] improve presentation in final pdf, html, and html-single builds In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901281341.n0SDfr0t005368@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=482784 Jared Smith changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jaredsmith at jaredsmith.net --- Comment #1 from Jared Smith 2009-01-28 08:41:52 EDT --- In the case of the "single refentry per page" problem, can't you simply add 0 to the XSL customization layer? That should do the trick. -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Jan 28 23:52:34 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 18:52:34 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 482784] improve presentation in final pdf, html, and html-single builds In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901282352.n0SNqYT4020381@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=482784 --- Comment #2 from Jeff Fearn 2009-01-28 18:52:33 EDT --- None of these tags are actually supported tags ATM; these tags are using default settings and we need to look in to what is supportable use in the long term. On my initial inspection of the XML it looks to me that using better tag selection may help. The section titled "A typical reference page for a function:" at http://www.docbook.org/tdg/en/html/refentry.html has a much better structure for function specification that what is currently being used. I tested the XML from the above link and although it was not perfect, it was considerable better laid out that the current approach. I also recommend switching from refsect1 to refsection. Using refsect1 forces it to be marked up as a level 1 section, this will prevent depth based styling. -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Jan 29 02:14:59 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 21:14:59 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 482784] improve presentation in final pdf, html, and html-single builds In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901290214.n0T2ExOJ013621@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=482784 --- Comment #4 from Jeff Fearn 2009-01-28 21:14:59 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=330308) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=330308) looking good -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Jan 29 02:14:17 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 21:14:17 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 482784] improve presentation in final pdf, html, and html-single builds In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901290214.n0T2EHVB013539@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=482784 --- Comment #3 from Jeff Fearn 2009-01-28 21:14:17 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=330307) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=330307) how old structure is displayed -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Jan 29 02:18:21 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 21:18:21 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 482784] improve presentation in final pdf, html, and html-single builds In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901290218.n0T2ILuB014408@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=482784 --- Comment #5 from Jeff Fearn 2009-01-28 21:18:21 EDT --- This new image represents how switching to the XML structure I mentioned above looks when using ANSI styled function definitions. The default function definition style is K&R, which is ugly and makes babies cry. -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Jan 29 02:25:23 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 21:25:23 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 482784] improve presentation in final pdf, html, and html-single builds In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901290225.n0T2PNjH010479@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=482784 --- Comment #6 from Brian Forte 2009-01-28 21:25:22 EDT --- I checked in an edited Tapset_Reference_Guide.xml containing three examples of the structure as noted above by jfearn. The first example uses printf, the second two are edits of two extant entries (cpu and euid). NB: the 'looking good' screenshot above is consequent to a publican change that, as of this typing, hasn't gone public. -- 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. From eric at christensenplace.us Thu Jan 29 02:33:06 2009 From: eric at christensenplace.us (Eric Christensen) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 21:33:06 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] Source0 in the Spec file Message-ID: <49811562.8020109@christensenplace.us> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I'm trying to figure out a way to populate the Source0 in the SPEC file. I'd like to put it in the Book_Info.xml file but I think I have to tell Publican to grab it somehow. I put "Source0: " in the dt_htmlsingle_spec.xsl file. Can anyone point me in the right direction? - -Eric -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkmBFWEACgkQfQTSQL0MFMGqWACcDWIvbZkR3+NY1pNqEHYREdA/ TGMAniGW4tD6VgVGb1IvIb0dQGoSQdQB =gWuA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jfearn at redhat.com Thu Jan 29 03:02:51 2009 From: jfearn at redhat.com (Jeff Fearn) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 13:02:51 +1000 Subject: [publican-list] Source0 in the Spec file In-Reply-To: <49811562.8020109@christensenplace.us> References: <49811562.8020109@christensenplace.us> Message-ID: <49811C5B.50906@redhat.com> Eric Christensen wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > I'm trying to figure out a way to populate the Source0 in the SPEC file. > I'd like to put it in the Book_Info.xml file but I think I have to tell > Publican to grab it somehow. > > I put "Source0: " in the > dt_htmlsingle_spec.xsl file. Can anyone point me in the right direction? Is this a bug or are you just customising things for yourself? You can't just make up tags like source, you'd have to use a valid DocBook tag. see http://www.docbook.org/tdg/en/html/bookinfo.html#d0e39987 I note that dt_htmlsingle_spec.xsl is different than web-spec.xsl, so maybe it is a bug. web-spec.xsl has: Source: %{name}-%{version}-.tgz Cheers, Jeff. -- Jeff Fearn Software Engineer Engineering Operations Red Hat, Inc Freedom ... courage ... Commitment ... ACCOUNTABILITY From eric at christensenplace.us Thu Jan 29 03:11:38 2009 From: eric at christensenplace.us (Eric Christensen) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 22:11:38 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] Source0 in the Spec file In-Reply-To: <49811C5B.50906@redhat.com> References: <49811562.8020109@christensenplace.us> <49811C5B.50906@redhat.com> Message-ID: <49811E6A.60804@christensenplace.us> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jeff Fearn wrote: > Eric Christensen wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> I'm trying to figure out a way to populate the Source0 in the SPEC file. >> I'd like to put it in the Book_Info.xml file but I think I have to tell >> Publican to grab it somehow. >> >> I put "Source0: " in the >> dt_htmlsingle_spec.xsl file. Can anyone point me in the right direction? > > Is this a bug or are you just customising things for yourself? > > You can't just make up tags like source, you'd have to use a valid > DocBook tag. see http://www.docbook.org/tdg/en/html/bookinfo.html#d0e39987 > > I note that dt_htmlsingle_spec.xsl is different than web-spec.xsl, so > maybe it is a bug. > > web-spec.xsl has: > > Source: %{name}-%{version}-.tgz > > Cheers, Jeff. > Well, it is a bug but one I was trying to fix ahead of time. :) I hate complaining without having a solution ready. Yeah, I'm not sure how to do this, really. I'll file a bug against Publican. - -Eric -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkmBHmgACgkQfQTSQL0MFMGCogCgydFfJyUzO8FBmUC8XgK2/P6u FXQAn29C6+ax6BwvjHZ1515jQu928HYV =W4MP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Jan 29 03:34:49 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 22:34:49 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 482784] RFE: Support refentry In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901290334.n0T3YndB029566@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=482784 Jeff Fearn changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|improve |RFE: Support refentry |presentation in final pdf, | |html, and html-single | |builds | -- 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.