From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Oct 1 00:10:48 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:10:48 -0400 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 492984] procedure steps are pulled onto next page and leave white space In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200910010010.n910AmhQ007277@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=492984 Jeff Fearn changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jfearn at redhat.com --- Comment #3 from Jeff Fearn 2009-09-30 20:10:47 EDT --- Maybe a better approach would be to override the para template and check for the existence of a figure, and if detected set keep-together for that para. e.g. always Untested of course :) This would mean any para with a figure inside it shouldn't be longer than a page as opposed to any step shouldn't be longer than a page. It would also apply outside of steps. -- 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 Thu Oct 1 00:39:26 2009 From: jfearn at redhat.com (Jeffrey Fearn) Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 10:39:26 +1000 Subject: [publican-list] RFC: PDF: Articles do not include author information (orgdiv, orgname, etc) Message-ID: <4AC3FA3E.10302@redhat.com> Here is the text from BZ 494147, does anyone have any comments on how or if this should be changed? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=494147 > Description of problem: > PDF articles do not include the author's organization, divison, or email > address. PDF books include this information on page 2. > > Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): > publican-0.45-0.el5 > publican-redhat-0.19-0.el5 > > How reproducible: > Always. > > Steps to Reproduce: > 1. create_book --type=Article --brand=RedHat --name=My_Article > 2. edit "My_Article/en-US/Article_Info.xml": > > Red Hat Enterprise Linux > 5 > 1.0 > 0 > > 3. cd My_Article/ && make pdf-en-US > > > Actual results: > No author information (organization, division, email address). > > Expected results: > Author information (organization, division, email address). Cheers, Jeff. -- Jeff Fearn Software Engineer Engineering Operations Red Hat, Inc Freedom ... courage ... Commitment ... ACCOUNTABILITY From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Oct 1 00:57:36 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:57:36 -0400 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 497462] feature request: smaller font size for code samples In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200910010057.n910vaFE021710@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=497462 --- Comment #3 from Jeff Fearn 2009-09-30 20:57:35 EDT --- (In reply to comment #0) > Description of problem: > > The monospaced font used for code samples is sized larger than the regular > text. This is often a problem with java code samples due to the verbosity of > the language. A smaller font size would be preferred. > > /usr/share/publican/xsl/pdf.xsl has > > 114 > 115 > 116 > 117 > 118 > 119 > > Uncommenting the font-size attribute applies to all instances of the monospace > font. 9pt looks ok, even 8pt is readable for me. I don't know what > typographical issues this could lead to. Personally I'd rather make the font size a ratio of body.font.master, which defaults to 10. e.g. pt That way if you increase body.font.master, say for a large print version, then you only need to change one variable. Does anyone else have an opinion on changing the monospace font size? Changing it here will affect ALL uses of monospace, including verbatim items such as screen and synopsis. 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 Thu Oct 1 01:08:36 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 21:08:36 -0400 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 502126] in html outputs has a border drawn around it In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200910010108.n9118aVA010748@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=502126 Jeff Fearn changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ON_DEV CC| |jfearn at redhat.com AssignedTo|mhideo at redhat.com |rlandman at redhat.com --- Comment #3 from Jeff Fearn 2009-09-30 21:08:35 EDT --- Committed revision 795 with this CSS change. -- 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 Oct 1 03:04:18 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 23:04:18 -0400 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 509307] remarks in s are not consistently highlighted in pdfs In-Reply-To: <bug-509307-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> References: <bug-509307-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> Message-ID: <200910010304.n9134Iie018509@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=509307 Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ON_DEV CC| |jfearn at redhat.com AssignedTo|mhideo at redhat.com |rlandman at redhat.com --- Comment #3 from Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> 2009-09-30 23:04:17 EDT --- Committed revision 796, which fixes this issue. -- 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 Oct 1 23:27:39 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 19:27:39 -0400 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 497462] feature request: smaller font size for code samples In-Reply-To: <bug-497462-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> References: <bug-497462-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> Message-ID: <200910012327.n91NRd13008430@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=497462 Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|mhideo at redhat.com |rlandman 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 Thu Oct 1 23:27:12 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 19:27:12 -0400 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 497462] feature request: smaller font size for code samples In-Reply-To: <bug-497462-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> References: <bug-497462-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> Message-ID: <200910012327.n91NRCA8024259@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=497462 Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ON_DEV CC| |jfearn at redhat.com --- Comment #4 from Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> 2009-10-01 19:27:11 EDT --- Changed shade.verbatim font size to * 0.8 in PDF and x 0.9 in HTML. -- 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 Oct 2 00:23:28 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 20:23:28 -0400 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 492984] procedure steps are pulled onto next page and leave white space In-Reply-To: <bug-492984-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> References: <bug-492984-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> Message-ID: <200910020023.n920NS9Z025282@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=492984 --- Comment #4 from Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> 2009-10-01 20:23:27 EDT --- Yo, please supply the SVN location of your source and the PDF pages where you see this problem. -- 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 Oct 2 00:36:25 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 20:36:25 -0400 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 486520] Preface headings and revision history should use sentence caps In-Reply-To: <bug-486520-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> References: <bug-486520-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> Message-ID: <200910020036.n920aPQX029201@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=486520 Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |WONTFIX --- Comment #10 from Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> 2009-10-01 20:36:22 EDT --- There is no consensus on what to use, so we will stick with what we have. -- 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 Oct 2 01:40:49 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 21:40:49 -0400 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 495821] RFE: make test to return warnings/errors when images are missing In-Reply-To: <bug-495821-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> References: <bug-495821-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> Message-ID: <200910020140.n921enCH018220@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=495821 Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ON_DEV CC| |jfearn at redhat.com AssignedTo|mhideo at redhat.com |rlandman at redhat.com --- Comment #3 from Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> 2009-10-01 21:40:48 EDT --- Committed revision 798, which emits a warning when an image can't be found. -- 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 Oct 2 01:41:34 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 21:41:34 -0400 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 492984] procedure steps are pulled onto next page and leave white space In-Reply-To: <bug-492984-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> References: <bug-492984-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> Message-ID: <200910020141.n921fYDr002838@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=492984 Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|mhideo at redhat.com |jfearn 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 Fri Oct 2 04:23:57 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 00:23:57 -0400 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 492984] procedure steps are pulled onto next page and leave white space In-Reply-To: <bug-492984-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> References: <bug-492984-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> Message-ID: <200910020423.n924NvhX025427@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=492984 Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ON_DEV AssignedTo|jfearn at redhat.com |rlandman at redhat.com --- Comment #5 from Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> 2009-10-02 00:23:56 EDT --- This change is checked in the repo, but it's untested. We will need some content to test beta2 on. -- 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 Oct 5 04:09:15 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 00:09:15 -0400 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 479794] image quality In-Reply-To: <bug-479794-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> References: <bug-479794-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> Message-ID: <200910050409.n9549Fxr017895@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=479794 Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ON_DEV AssignedTo|mhideo at redhat.com |rlandman at redhat.com --- Comment #7 from Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> 2009-10-05 00:09:14 EDT --- Committed revision 803, which changes the the re-size method, from scaling, to setting width to max_width (440px). This will mean small images never get automatically scaled or re-sized. -- 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 Oct 5 04:13:41 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 00:13:41 -0400 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 482784] RFE: Support refentry In-Reply-To: <bug-482784-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> References: <bug-482784-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> Message-ID: <200910050413.n954Dfqn031722@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 Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|mhideo at redhat.com |rlandman 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 Mon Oct 5 04:13:55 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 00:13:55 -0400 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 506383] Entity year needs updating from 2008. In-Reply-To: <bug-506383-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> References: <bug-506383-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> Message-ID: <200910050413.n954DtTH032061@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=506383 Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|mhideo at redhat.com |rlandman 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 Mon Oct 5 04:13:52 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 00:13:52 -0400 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 494152] PDF: para tags in abstract are not honored In-Reply-To: <bug-494152-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> References: <bug-494152-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> Message-ID: <200910050413.n954DqQi031991@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=494152 Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|mhideo at redhat.com |rlandman 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 Mon Oct 5 04:13:38 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 00:13:38 -0400 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 471703] RFE: new "make" target that does not use 98-100% CPU In-Reply-To: <bug-471703-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> References: <bug-471703-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> Message-ID: <200910050413.n954DcSu031647@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=471703 Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|mhideo at redhat.com |rlandman 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 Mon Oct 5 04:13:43 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 00:13:43 -0400 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 491782] .xml and images in sub-directories break images in PDF In-Reply-To: <bug-491782-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> References: <bug-491782-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> Message-ID: <200910050413.n954DhOK031770@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=491782 Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|mhideo at redhat.com |rlandman 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 Mon Oct 5 04:13:57 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 00:13:57 -0400 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 509768] fix for no rounded corners in html output when viewed in Safari In-Reply-To: <bug-509768-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> References: <bug-509768-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> Message-ID: <200910050413.n954DvVm032112@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=509768 Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|mhideo at redhat.com |rlandman 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 Mon Oct 5 04:13:51 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 00:13:51 -0400 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 494079] Article_Name.ent has "Article_Name.ent" in HOLDER ENTITY definition In-Reply-To: <bug-494079-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> References: <bug-494079-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> Message-ID: <200910050413.n954DpD3031953@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=494079 Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|bforte at redhat.com |rlandman 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 Mon Oct 5 23:18:07 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 19:18:07 -0400 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 480721] Banned tags and translations considerations need to be added to Users Guide In-Reply-To: <bug-480721-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> References: <bug-480721-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> Message-ID: <200910052318.n95NI7lT017418@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 Ruediger Landmann <rlandman at redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|bforte at redhat.com |mhideo 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 Mon Oct 5 23:18:19 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 19:18:19 -0400 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 480721] Banned tags and translations considerations need to be added to Users Guide In-Reply-To: <bug-480721-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> References: <bug-480721-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> Message-ID: <200910052318.n95NIJe4031447@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=480721 Ruediger Landmann <rlandman at redhat.com> 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 Oct 5 23:19:16 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 19:19:16 -0400 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 486501] html output does not display correctly in IE7 In-Reply-To: <bug-486501-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> References: <bug-486501-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> Message-ID: <200910052319.n95NJGB8017733@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=486501 Ruediger Landmann <rlandman at redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |alex.aycinena at gmail.com --- Comment #6 from Ruediger Landmann <rlandman at redhat.com> 2009-10-05 19:19:14 EDT --- *** Bug 512471 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- 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 Mon Oct 5 23:47:44 2009 From: jfearn at redhat.com (Jeffrey Fearn) Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 09:47:44 +1000 Subject: [publican-list] Adjusting copyright information In-Reply-To: <87skffrnwn.fsf@vertex.dottedmag.net> References: <87r5v097yw.fsf@vertex.dottedmag.net> <4A947E2D.7070306@redhat.com> <87skffrnwn.fsf@vertex.dottedmag.net> Message-ID: <4ACA85A0.6030801@redhat.com> Hi, an update on the remaining two issues raised. Mikhail Gusarov wrote: > Twas brillig at 10:13:33 26.08.2009 UTC+10 when jfearn at redhat.com did gyre and gimble: > > JF> I removed this as I checked some other README files and none > JF> contained copyright clauses. > > [..] cool, thanks. > > >> datadir/Common_Content/*: no copyright/license information > > JF> hmm that content is all GFDL license, anyone know if I need to > JF> specify this per file or can I do it in one place? > > IANAL, but this can be specified in single file, like > Common_Content/common/README: "all the data in this directory is under > GFDL", but better check with your legal department. Rudi is talking with the legal people about this, we expect a separate update message shortly. > >> datadir/fop/fop.xconf: Apache-2 license, no copyright > >> information. Probably (c) 1999-2008 The Apache Software Foundation > >> as taken from fop. > > JF> Maybe we should rewrite this file? > > Only if you want a single license. IMHO, it's ok to have this file > (except, Apache-2 requires LICENSE and NOTICE files in top of source > tree). I rewrote this file, which also removed a lot of un-required stuff, so it can be covered by the package license. Cheers, Jeff. -- Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> Software Engineer Engineering Operations Red Hat, Inc Freedom ... courage ... Commitment ... ACCOUNTABILITY From r.landmann at redhat.com Tue Oct 6 03:22:46 2009 From: r.landmann at redhat.com (Ruediger Landmann) Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 13:22:46 +1000 Subject: [publican-list] Adjusting copyright information In-Reply-To: <4ACA85A0.6030801@redhat.com> References: <87r5v097yw.fsf@vertex.dottedmag.net> <4A947E2D.7070306@redhat.com> <87skffrnwn.fsf@vertex.dottedmag.net> <4ACA85A0.6030801@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4ACAB806.1010403@redhat.com> On 10/06/2009 09:47 AM, Jeffrey Fearn wrote: > Mikhail Gusarov wrote: >> IANAL, but this can be specified in single file, like >> Common_Content/common/README: "all the data in this directory is under >> GFDL", but better check with your legal department. > > Rudi is talking with the legal people about this, we expect a separate > update message shortly. Thanks Jeff :) Red Hat legal has identified a number of ambiguities around the licenses involved: specifically, the relationship between the license of the package against the license of the text in the Common Content files, against the license of books that users produce that incorporates that Common Content. One particular problem is that as things stand right now, if the text in Common Content is licensed under the GFDL, this means that any book that anybody builds in Publican that incorporates that text must also be licensed under the GFDL (or a compatible license). This, in turn, creates an immediate incompatibility in any brand package that loads a legal notice with a different license... Legal's solution is that we include a note that explicitly spells out that whatever license appears between the <legalnotice> tags in the Legal_Notice.xml file applies only to the books into which it is pre-loaded, and not the text of the Legal Notice file itself. Furthermore, they suggest pretty much exactly what you suggested, Mikhail -- we find as permissive a license as possible for the Common Content files, and license them under that, separately from the rest of the contents of the package. So far we've looked at the WTFPL[1], CC0[2], and the so-called GNU All-Permissive License[3]. We had to regretfully reject the WTFPL on the basis that some people might find it offensive. :( This is a real shame, because it basically stands for everything that we need the license on the Common Content files to stand for... When we read the GNU "All-Permissive" License, it turned out to be not what it claims, since rather than being "all permissive", it requires re-users to leave the license in place. Relicensing is therefore as difficult as it is now. Although CC0 is cumbersome (check out the full legal code! [4]), it seems to do what we need it to do. It's therefore the current favourite as license of choice for the Common Content files, unless anyone on the list knows of a similarly broad license with less legalese? Cheers Ruediger [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL [2] http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ [3] http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/License-Notices-for-Other-Files.html [4] http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode From stickster at gmail.com Tue Oct 6 18:01:52 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 14:01:52 -0400 Subject: [publican-list] Adjusting copyright information In-Reply-To: <4ACAB806.1010403@redhat.com> References: <87r5v097yw.fsf@vertex.dottedmag.net> <4A947E2D.7070306@redhat.com> <87skffrnwn.fsf@vertex.dottedmag.net> <4ACA85A0.6030801@redhat.com> <4ACAB806.1010403@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20091006180152.GT4688@victoria.internal.frields.org> On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 01:22:46PM +1000, Ruediger Landmann wrote: > On 10/06/2009 09:47 AM, Jeffrey Fearn wrote: > >Mikhail Gusarov wrote: > >>IANAL, but this can be specified in single file, like > >>Common_Content/common/README: "all the data in this directory is under > >>GFDL", but better check with your legal department. > > > >Rudi is talking with the legal people about this, we expect a > >separate update message shortly. > > Thanks Jeff :) > > Red Hat legal has identified a number of ambiguities around the > licenses involved: specifically, the relationship between the > license of the package against the license of the text in the Common > Content files, against the license of books that users produce that > incorporates that Common Content. > > One particular problem is that as things stand right now, if the > text in Common Content is licensed under the GFDL, this means that > any book that anybody builds in Publican that incorporates that text > must also be licensed under the GFDL (or a compatible license). > This, in turn, creates an immediate incompatibility in any brand > package that loads a legal notice with a different license... > > Legal's solution is that we include a note that explicitly spells > out that whatever license appears between the <legalnotice> tags in > the Legal_Notice.xml file applies only to the books into which it is > pre-loaded, and not the text of the Legal Notice file itself. > Furthermore, they suggest pretty much exactly what you suggested, > Mikhail -- we find as permissive a license as possible for the > Common Content files, and license them under that, separately from > the rest of the contents of the package. > > So far we've looked at the WTFPL[1], CC0[2], and the so-called GNU > All-Permissive License[3]. > > We had to regretfully reject the WTFPL on the basis that some people > might find it offensive. :( This is a real shame, because it > basically stands for everything that we need the license on the > Common Content files to stand for... > > When we read the GNU "All-Permissive" License, it turned out to be > not what it claims, since rather than being "all permissive", it > requires re-users to leave the license in place. Relicensing is > therefore as difficult as it is now. > > Although CC0 is cumbersome (check out the full legal code! [4]), it > seems to do what we need it to do. It's therefore the current > favourite as license of choice for the Common Content files, unless > anyone on the list knows of a similarly broad license with less > legalese? > > > Cheers > > Ruediger > > > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL > > [2] http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ > > [3] http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/License-Notices-for-Other-Files.html > > [4] http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode I'm forwarding a copy of this to the fedora-legal-list -- Spot may be able to suggest something appropriate to cover the publican Common Content. We need this license to be compatible with inclusion in works produced by Fedora Docs, and in works that incorporate content from the Fedora wiki, right? If CC0 can coexist peacefully in that role with the new CC licensing used in both those cases, it does seem like the best contender. -- 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 From stickster at gmail.com Tue Oct 6 18:46:45 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 14:46:45 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: [publican-list] Adjusting copyright information In-Reply-To: <4ACB88F4.9000401@redhat.com> References: <87r5v097yw.fsf@vertex.dottedmag.net> <4A947E2D.7070306@redhat.com> <87skffrnwn.fsf@vertex.dottedmag.net> <4ACA85A0.6030801@redhat.com> <4ACAB806.1010403@redhat.com> <20091006180152.GT4688@victoria.internal.frields.org> <4ACB88F4.9000401@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20091006184645.GD15104@victoria.internal.frields.org> On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 02:14:12PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote: > On 10/06/2009 02:01 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > We need this license to be compatible with inclusion in works produced > > by Fedora Docs, and in works that incorporate content from the Fedora > > wiki, right? If CC0 can coexist peacefully in that role with the new > > CC licensing used in both those cases, it does seem like the best > > contender. > > Assuming that the CC licensing is "CC-BY-SA" (Attribution Share-Alike), > right? > > I've asked Red Hat Legal here, just to make sure my instincts are right. Correct, the Docs project is switching to CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-announce-list/2009-October/msg00001.html -- 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 From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Oct 13 04:26:19 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 00:26:19 -0400 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 494147] PDF: Articles do not include author information (orgdiv, orgname, etc) In-Reply-To: <bug-494147-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> References: <bug-494147-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> Message-ID: <200910130426.n9D4QJrl032380@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=494147 Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jfearn at redhat.com --- Comment #3 from Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> 2009-10-13 00:26:18 EDT --- Hi Murray, there has been no feedback from anyone on if this data should present or how it should look. So if you tell me how you want it to look I'll implement that! 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 Oct 13 22:40:43 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:40:43 -0400 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 480721] Banned tags and translations considerations need to be added to Users Guide In-Reply-To: <bug-480721-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> References: <bug-480721-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> Message-ID: <200910132240.n9DMehlb003456@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 Ruediger Landmann <rlandman at redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |ON_DEV --- Comment #4 from Ruediger Landmann <rlandman at redhat.com> 2009-10-13 18:40:41 EDT --- Now Appendix A: Disallowed elements and attributes in the Publican Users Guide. Draft available here: http://rlandmann.fedorapeople.org/pug/appe-Disallowed_elements_and_attributes.html -- 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 Oct 22 06:44:04 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 02:44:04 -0400 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 494147] PDF: Articles do not include author information (orgdiv, orgname, etc) In-Reply-To: <bug-494147-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> References: <bug-494147-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> Message-ID: <200910220644.n9M6i41q010499@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=494147 --- Comment #4 from Murray McAllister <mmcallis at redhat.com> 2009-10-22 02:44:03 EDT --- re comment #0, <http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/funny-pictures-cat-likes-your-point.jpg>. re comment #3, please make the front cover of PDF documents identical to multi-page HTML documents. Many 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 jfearn at redhat.com Mon Oct 26 00:41:13 2009 From: jfearn at redhat.com (Jeffrey Fearn) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:41:13 +1000 Subject: [publican-list] Suggesting /usr/share/publican instead of /usr/share/Publican In-Reply-To: <4AA42B8B.5020305@redhat.com> References: <e5d6f9a40909050619n7ea9ca2fsf613b8bac7de6bd9@mail.gmail.com> <4AA42B8B.5020305@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4AE4F029.8030002@redhat.com> Jeffrey Fearn wrote: > Hi Danai, > > Danai SAE-HAN (???) wrote: >> Hi >> >> I'm wondering if there's a reason why Publican puts everything in >> /usr/share/Publican/. Is it a Red Hat policy to start directories in >> /usr/share/ with a capital? If not, would you consider renaming it to >> its lowercase version (cfr. line 173 of Build.PL in the trunk)? As an >> end user I expected the files to be in /usr/share/publican/. >> >> On line 14 of publican.spec in the trunk I have noticed the following: >> >> # TODO after beta revert to lower case name >> >> Does this mean that "Publican" will be renamed to "publican" in the >> future, and with it the name in /usr/share/? > > This is correct. The use of Publican is so that people can install the > beta alongside the current shipped version and thus test the beta > without affecting their ability to do their normal work. > > It's a bit of a cheat, but it was the best way I could think of to get > existing users to give the beta a spin :) > >> The reason I ask is because on Debian, most packages use directories >> in lowercase in /usr/share/. FYI: on Debian I have therefore opened >> bug report #545127 (see [1]); you are free to join, of course. >> >> >> Best regards, and thanks for Publican. >> >> >> >> [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=545127 FYI, the path has been changed to lowercase in SVN in preparation for going live with 1.0. Cheers, Jeff. -- Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> Software Engineer Engineering Operations Red Hat, Inc Freedom ... courage ... Commitment ... ACCOUNTABILITY From kanarip at kanarip.com Mon Oct 26 06:25:25 2009 From: kanarip at kanarip.com (Jeroen van Meeuwen) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 07:25:25 +0100 Subject: [publican-list] Suggesting /usr/share/publican instead of /usr/share/Publican In-Reply-To: <4AA42B8B.5020305@redhat.com> References: <e5d6f9a40909050619n7ea9ca2fsf613b8bac7de6bd9@mail.gmail.com> <4AA42B8B.5020305@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4AE540D5.4050200@kanarip.com> On 09/06/2009 11:37 PM, Jeffrey Fearn wrote: > Hi Danai, > > Danai SAE-HAN (?????????) wrote: >> Hi >> >> I'm wondering if there's a reason why Publican puts everything in >> /usr/share/Publican/. Is it a Red Hat policy to start directories in >> /usr/share/ with a capital? If not, would you consider renaming it to >> its lowercase version (cfr. line 173 of Build.PL in the trunk)? As an >> end user I expected the files to be in /usr/share/publican/. >> >> On line 14 of publican.spec in the trunk I have noticed the following: >> >> # TODO after beta revert to lower case name >> >> Does this mean that "Publican" will be renamed to "publican" in the >> future, and with it the name in /usr/share/? > > This is correct. The use of Publican is so that people can install the > beta alongside the current shipped version and thus test the beta > without affecting their ability to do their normal work. > The funny thing is, I need the beta to do my normal work, but it's not available to me (doesn't build from source either). -- Jeroen From r.landmann at redhat.com Mon Oct 26 06:42:54 2009 From: r.landmann at redhat.com (Ruediger Landmann) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:42:54 +1000 Subject: [publican-list] Suggesting /usr/share/publican instead of /usr/share/Publican In-Reply-To: <4AE540D5.4050200@kanarip.com> References: <e5d6f9a40909050619n7ea9ca2fsf613b8bac7de6bd9@mail.gmail.com> <4AA42B8B.5020305@redhat.com> <4AE540D5.4050200@kanarip.com> Message-ID: <4AE544EE.2020304@redhat.com> On 10/26/2009 04:25 PM, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: > > The funny thing is, I need the beta to do my normal work, but it's not > available to me (doesn't build from source either). > Hi Jeroen Try dowloading the beta from here and see if it works for you: https://fedorahosted.org/publican/wiki/PublicanBetaAnnounce If that doesn't work, what do you need from the beta that isn't in the version of Publican that you're currently using? Cheers Ruediger From r.landmann at redhat.com Mon Oct 26 06:52:38 2009 From: r.landmann at redhat.com (Ruediger Landmann) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:52:38 +1000 Subject: [publican-list] Adjusting copyright information In-Reply-To: <87r5v097yw.fsf@vertex.dottedmag.net> References: <87r5v097yw.fsf@vertex.dottedmag.net> Message-ID: <4AE54736.4010709@redhat.com> On 08/25/2009 08:12 AM, Mikhail Gusarov wrote: > I had a look at copyright information in Publican source code and would > like to share the findings in order to make debian/copyright file in > Debian package a bit shorter :) Mikhail, could you please take a look at the current source? We've moved all copyright and licensing information out of individual files and placed it in a single file: LICENSE. (The full-text versions of the licenses themselves are still in separate files, though.) Jeff rewrote fop.xconf, allowing us to sidestep having to include the Apache license in the mix too. Hopefully this makes your task a bit easier; and thanks so much for providing the roadmap for us :) Cheers Ruediger From kanarip at kanarip.com Mon Oct 26 07:01:27 2009 From: kanarip at kanarip.com (Jeroen van Meeuwen) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:01:27 +0100 Subject: [publican-list] Suggesting /usr/share/publican instead of /usr/share/Publican In-Reply-To: <4AE544EE.2020304@redhat.com> References: <e5d6f9a40909050619n7ea9ca2fsf613b8bac7de6bd9@mail.gmail.com> <4AA42B8B.5020305@redhat.com> <4AE540D5.4050200@kanarip.com> <4AE544EE.2020304@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4AE54947.3090800@kanarip.com> On 10/26/2009 07:42 AM, Ruediger Landmann wrote: > Try dowloading the beta from here and see if it works for you: > https://fedorahosted.org/publican/wiki/PublicanBetaAnnounce > > If that doesn't work, what do you need from the beta that isn't in the > version of Publican that you're currently using? > Just a few small things with bigger impact: - tables in PDF - correct indentation of formalpara's in orderedlists (again mainly PDF) -- Jeroen From r.landmann at redhat.com Mon Oct 26 07:05:21 2009 From: r.landmann at redhat.com (Ruediger Landmann) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:05:21 +1000 Subject: [publican-list] Suggesting /usr/share/publican instead of /usr/share/Publican In-Reply-To: <4AE54947.3090800@kanarip.com> References: <e5d6f9a40909050619n7ea9ca2fsf613b8bac7de6bd9@mail.gmail.com> <4AA42B8B.5020305@redhat.com> <4AE540D5.4050200@kanarip.com> <4AE544EE.2020304@redhat.com> <4AE54947.3090800@kanarip.com> Message-ID: <4AE54A31.2010708@redhat.com> On 10/26/2009 05:01 PM, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: > Just a few small things with bigger impact: > > - tables in PDF There's a fix for that in Publican 0.x on the Fedora wiki: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Publican#Publican_on_Fedora_Tips_and_Tweaks > - correct indentation of formalpara's in orderedlists (again mainly PDF) > ...but not for this, unfortunately :( Cheers Ruediger From kanarip at kanarip.com Mon Oct 26 12:45:54 2009 From: kanarip at kanarip.com (Jeroen van Meeuwen) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:45:54 +0100 Subject: [publican-list] Suggesting /usr/share/publican instead of /usr/share/Publican In-Reply-To: <4AE54A31.2010708@redhat.com> References: <e5d6f9a40909050619n7ea9ca2fsf613b8bac7de6bd9@mail.gmail.com> <4AA42B8B.5020305@redhat.com> <4AE540D5.4050200@kanarip.com> <4AE544EE.2020304@redhat.com> <4AE54947.3090800@kanarip.com> <4AE54A31.2010708@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4AE59A02.8030605@kanarip.com> On 10/26/2009 08:05 AM, Ruediger Landmann wrote: > On 10/26/2009 05:01 PM, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: >> Just a few small things with bigger impact: >> >> - tables in PDF > > There's a fix for that in Publican 0.x on the Fedora wiki: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Publican#Publican_on_Fedora_Tips_and_Tweaks > No package xslth in Fedora, and no review request either (well, there is one but it was deferred by Jeff for no apparent reason). What is wrong with this picture? >> - correct indentation of formalpara's in orderedlists (again mainly PDF) >> > ...but not for this, unfortunately :( > I hate repeating myself but why isn't the beta in rawhide again? -- Jeroen From dottedmag at dottedmag.net Mon Oct 26 17:50:03 2009 From: dottedmag at dottedmag.net (Mikhail Gusarov) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:50:03 +0600 Subject: [publican-list] Adjusting copyright information In-Reply-To: <4AE54736.4010709@redhat.com> (Ruediger Landmann's message of "Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:52:38 +1000") References: <87r5v097yw.fsf@vertex.dottedmag.net> <4AE54736.4010709@redhat.com> Message-ID: <87ljiy9h9w.fsf@vertex.dottedmag.net> Twas brillig at 16:52:38 26.10.2009 UTC+10 when r.landmann at redhat.com did gyre and gimble: RL> Mikhail, could you please take a look at the current source? We've RL> moved all copyright and licensing information out of individual RL> files and placed it in a single file: LICENSE. Thanks, it's very convenient, really helpful. RL> Jeff rewrote fop.xconf, allowing us to sidestep having to include the Apache RL> license in the mix too. Okay. -- http://fossarchy.blogspot.com/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 835 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/publican-list/attachments/20091026/bb933762/attachment.sig> From r.landmann at redhat.com Mon Oct 26 20:16:55 2009 From: r.landmann at redhat.com (Ruediger Landmann) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 06:16:55 +1000 Subject: [publican-list] Suggesting /usr/share/publican instead of /usr/share/Publican In-Reply-To: <4AE59A02.8030605@kanarip.com> References: <e5d6f9a40909050619n7ea9ca2fsf613b8bac7de6bd9@mail.gmail.com> <4AA42B8B.5020305@redhat.com> <4AE540D5.4050200@kanarip.com> <4AE544EE.2020304@redhat.com> <4AE54947.3090800@kanarip.com> <4AE54A31.2010708@redhat.com> <4AE59A02.8030605@kanarip.com> Message-ID: <4AE603B7.9060801@redhat.com> On 10/26/2009 10:45 PM, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: > I hate repeating myself but why isn't the beta in rawhide again? No problem -- it's because the new dependencies aren't in Fedora. So far, we only have one out of three. You can watch the progress of the other two here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=521724 and https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=521723 Unfortunately, it can take some time to get new packages approved in Fedora. However, it looks like they are receiving some attention now and I'm expecting that we'll see at least one of these in Fedora very shortly. Cheers Ruediger From jfearn at redhat.com Mon Oct 26 22:30:48 2009 From: jfearn at redhat.com (Jeffrey Fearn) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 08:30:48 +1000 Subject: [publican-list] Suggesting /usr/share/publican instead of /usr/share/Publican In-Reply-To: <4AE59A02.8030605@kanarip.com> References: <e5d6f9a40909050619n7ea9ca2fsf613b8bac7de6bd9@mail.gmail.com> <4AA42B8B.5020305@redhat.com> <4AE540D5.4050200@kanarip.com> <4AE544EE.2020304@redhat.com> <4AE54947.3090800@kanarip.com> <4AE54A31.2010708@redhat.com> <4AE59A02.8030605@kanarip.com> Message-ID: <4AE62318.5000704@redhat.com> Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: > On 10/26/2009 08:05 AM, Ruediger Landmann wrote: >> On 10/26/2009 05:01 PM, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: >>> Just a few small things with bigger impact: >>> >>> - tables in PDF >> >> There's a fix for that in Publican 0.x on the Fedora wiki: >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Publican#Publican_on_Fedora_Tips_and_Tweaks >> > > No package xslth in Fedora, and no review request either (well, there is > one but it was deferred by Jeff for no apparent reason). https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455358 Comment #6 From Jeff Fearn (jfearn at redhat.com) 2008-11-17 23:55:06 EDT Packages rebuilt Comment #7 From Jeff Fearn (jfearn at redhat.com) 2009-01-04 23:51:45 EDT Request withdrawn We now know that my tolerance for bureaucracy is less than 6 weeks. > What is wrong with this picture? The Fedora packaging process is ridiculously bureaucratic and completely lacking in accountability? >>> - correct indentation of formalpara's in orderedlists (again mainly PDF) >>> >> ...but not for this, unfortunately :( >> > > I hate repeating myself but why isn't the beta in rawhide again? A: Doing so would have made it impossible for those Red Hat people using rawhide to do their daily work. B: Publican is NOT a fedora project and our time lines are not constrained by fedora or it's bureaucracy. C: The Fedora packaging process is ridiculously bureaucratic and completely lacking in accountability? The package requests have been in fedora's ridiculously bureaucratic and completely lacking accountability package request system for 6 weeks, if you want to vent at someone I suggest you direct it at the people who advocate that system. And yes, if I'd opened those tickets I would have closed them by now and not bothered with 1.0 on fedora. Bureaucracy is like a shell fish allergy, your tolerance is lowered every time you encounter it :/ Cheers. Jeff. -- Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> Software Engineer Engineering Operations Red Hat, Inc Freedom ... courage ... Commitment ... ACCOUNTABILITY From kanarip at kanarip.com Mon Oct 26 23:04:44 2009 From: kanarip at kanarip.com (Jeroen van Meeuwen) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:04:44 +0100 Subject: [publican-list] Suggesting /usr/share/publican instead of /usr/share/Publican In-Reply-To: <4AE62318.5000704@redhat.com> References: <e5d6f9a40909050619n7ea9ca2fsf613b8bac7de6bd9@mail.gmail.com> <4AA42B8B.5020305@redhat.com> <4AE540D5.4050200@kanarip.com> <4AE544EE.2020304@redhat.com> <4AE54947.3090800@kanarip.com> <4AE54A31.2010708@redhat.com> <4AE59A02.8030605@kanarip.com> <4AE62318.5000704@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4AE62B0C.2070406@kanarip.com> On 10/26/2009 11:30 PM, Jeffrey Fearn wrote: > Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: >> No package xslth in Fedora, and no review request either (well, there >> is one but it was deferred by Jeff for no apparent reason). > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455358 > > Comment #6 From Jeff Fearn (jfearn at redhat.com) 2008-11-17 23:55:06 EDT > Packages rebuilt > > Comment #7 From Jeff Fearn (jfearn at redhat.com) 2009-01-04 23:51:45 EDT > Request withdrawn > > We now know that my tolerance for bureaucracy is less than 6 weeks. > That, in my opinion, is a funny quote coming from someone @redhat.com. >> What is wrong with this picture? > > The Fedora packaging process is ridiculously bureaucratic and completely > lacking in accountability? > I'm not sure what this has to do with what I asked, but I'll bite; Have you seen the packages that come from Red Hat? Make no mistake, patches in there fail to apply in a simple rpmbuild --rebuild. Not to mention the horror in Merge Review requests. They, *they*, are part of the reason why the Fedora Packaging process is so bureaucratic, mind you. This thing builds the *best* packages, too, in case you were wondering what the use of all that paper shoveling was. >>>> - correct indentation of formalpara's in orderedlists (again mainly >>>> PDF) >>>> >>> ...but not for this, unfortunately :( >>> >> >> I hate repeating myself but why isn't the beta in rawhide again? > > A: Doing so would have made it impossible for those Red Hat people using > rawhide to do their daily work. > Without it being in a current Fedora release or rawhide I cannot do my daily work, how about that? It was fixed at one point, broken at another, and you say it fixed in the mystical Beta, but nobody knows where it is -until you just said it. I bet there's as many people within Red Hat using rawhide in their daily jobs (AND using Publican) as there is people using Publican within my company. > B: Publican is NOT a fedora project and our time lines are not > constrained by fedora or it's bureaucracy. > Actually they are in many many ways but I guess you don't realize that yet, so nevermind. > C: The Fedora packaging process is ridiculously bureaucratic and > completely lacking in accountability? > Despite the feeling I get you are repeating yourself, all I can say here is you either step up to improve it or you live with it. I'm not on this list to argue with you about what you think sucks so great you can't do your job any more well then you have -there's mailing lists for that (friday-list@, memo-list@). I'm here to collaborate, and I'll tell you what I normally, but first: At several points, when I address an issue on this list, you just point me to the fact there's some kind of mystical Beta out there, which isn't available, and doesn't compile from SVN (didn't find a beta-like tag that would build either), I gotta query a dozen resources to get the packages (which I obviously have not), it uses different directories for all kinds of foo (bye bye brands), and now you dare getting in my face about it? > The package requests have been in fedora's ridiculously bureaucratic and > completely lacking accountability package request system for 6 weeks, if > you want to vent at someone I suggest you direct it at the people who > advocate that system. > > And yes, if I'd opened those tickets I would have closed them by now and > not bothered with 1.0 on fedora. Bureaucracy is like a shell fish > allergy, your tolerance is lowered every time you encounter it :/ > Damn dude, your attitude sucks. Here's what you should have done right from the beginning: Jeroen: formalpara's / tables blabla Jeff: Yeah, whatever, fixed in Beta but not in Fedora because of: 1) xslth 2) that other thing 3) whatever (..) 389) ohw yeah, and this... And you know... I would have gone through all the hoops and fixed up the packages or whatever else needed fixing so that they would have been accepted well within the fucking six weeks timelimit. And you know what, if you had just told me your boss is putting pressure on you to make sure all kinds of foo and bar departments within Red Hat can use Publican "we-don't-care-about-our-core-competency"-style, I would have *perfectly well* known what you were talking about -and helped you get the shit done, just so that it would have helped *us*. Kind regards, Jeroen van Meeuwen From ccurran at redhat.com Mon Oct 26 23:54:52 2009 From: ccurran at redhat.com (Christopher Curran) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 09:54:52 +1000 Subject: [publican-list] Suggesting /usr/share/publican instead of /usr/share/Publican In-Reply-To: <4AE54947.3090800@kanarip.com> References: <e5d6f9a40909050619n7ea9ca2fsf613b8bac7de6bd9@mail.gmail.com> <4AA42B8B.5020305@redhat.com> <4AE540D5.4050200@kanarip.com> <4AE544EE.2020304@redhat.com> <4AE54947.3090800@kanarip.com> Message-ID: <4AE636CC.8070405@redhat.com> Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: > On 10/26/2009 07:42 AM, Ruediger Landmann wrote: >> Try dowloading the beta from here and see if it works for you: >> https://fedorahosted.org/publican/wiki/PublicanBetaAnnounce >> >> If that doesn't work, what do you need from the beta that isn't in the >> version of Publican that you're currently using? >> > > Just a few small things with bigger impact: > > - tables in PDF > - correct indentation of formalpara's in orderedlists (again mainly PDF) > That's not the best way to use docbook. Try procedures with titles at the beginning of steps: <procedure> <step> <title>Creating an awesome album In this step you write an awesome song. The important stuff ???? Profit Reap some megabucks. I find procedures are much better than orderedlists in almost every way. > -- Jeroen > > _______________________________________________ > publican-list mailing list > publican-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/publican-list > Wiki: https://fedorahosted.org/publican > -- Chris Curran Content Author II Phone: +61735148302 (UTC+10) 193 North Quay, Brisbane, Australia. Red Hat, Inc. From jfearn at redhat.com Tue Oct 27 00:38:31 2009 From: jfearn at redhat.com (Jeffrey Fearn) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:38:31 +1000 Subject: [publican-list] Suggesting /usr/share/publican instead of /usr/share/Publican In-Reply-To: <4AE62B0C.2070406@kanarip.com> References: <4AA42B8B.5020305@redhat.com> <4AE540D5.4050200@kanarip.com> <4AE544EE.2020304@redhat.com> <4AE54947.3090800@kanarip.com> <4AE54A31.2010708@redhat.com> <4AE59A02.8030605@kanarip.com> <4AE62318.5000704@redhat.com> <4AE62B0C.2070406@kanarip.com> Message-ID: <4AE64107.1030702@redhat.com> Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: > On 10/26/2009 11:30 PM, Jeffrey Fearn wrote: >> Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: >>> No package xslth in Fedora, and no review request either (well, there >>> is one but it was deferred by Jeff for no apparent reason). >> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455358 >> >> Comment #6 From Jeff Fearn (jfearn at redhat.com) 2008-11-17 23:55:06 EDT >> Packages rebuilt >> >> Comment #7 From Jeff Fearn (jfearn at redhat.com) 2009-01-04 23:51:45 EDT >> Request withdrawn >> >> We now know that my tolerance for bureaucracy is less than 6 weeks. >> > > That, in my opinion, is a funny quote coming from someone @redhat.com. True, but not at all unusual for me. >>> What is wrong with this picture? >> >> The Fedora packaging process is ridiculously bureaucratic and completely >> lacking in accountability? >> > > I'm not sure what this has to do with what I asked, but I'll bite; > > Have you seen the packages that come from Red Hat? Make no mistake, > patches in there fail to apply in a simple rpmbuild --rebuild. Not to > mention the horror in Merge Review requests. They, *they*, are part of > the reason why the Fedora Packaging process is so bureaucratic, mind > you. I've had to rewrite this reply numerous times, so it might be a bit disjointed :D Poor spec files, from numerous, unspecified, sources, have led to the creation of the extremely useful tool rpmlint, this is good. The bureaucracy is much larger than validating that spec files are sane. > This thing builds the *best* packages, too, in case you were > wondering what the use of all that paper shoveling was. You just aligned bureaucracy with efficiency and good outcomes. >>>>> - correct indentation of formalpara's in orderedlists (again mainly >>>>> PDF) >>>>> >>>> ...but not for this, unfortunately :( >>>> >>> >>> I hate repeating myself but why isn't the beta in rawhide again? >> >> A: Doing so would have made it impossible for those Red Hat people using >> rawhide to do their daily work. >> > > Without it being in a current Fedora release or rawhide I cannot do my > daily work, how about that? It was fixed at one point, broken at > another, and you say it fixed in the mystical Beta, but nobody knows > where it is -until you just said it. We have detailed how to get the beta repeatedly on this list and have instructions on our wiki on how to use it. There should be no issue with using the F11 beta on rawhide. > I bet there's as many people within Red Hat using rawhide in their daily > jobs (AND using Publican) as there is people using Publican within my > company. I use rawhide myself, I have both the release and the beta installed. The other people here who have a similar setup used the beta instructions off the wiki to install the beta. The initial instructions had a few errors, they were corrected on feedback from these users. >> B: Publican is NOT a fedora project and our time lines are not >> constrained by fedora or it's bureaucracy. >> > > Actually they are in many many ways but I guess you don't realize that > yet, so nevermind. Believing this to be true will lead you to false conclusions as to what our goals and priorities are. >> C: The Fedora packaging process is ridiculously bureaucratic and >> completely lacking in accountability? >> > > Despite the feeling I get you are repeating yourself, all I can say here > is you either step up to improve it or you live with it. Or ignore it and move on to distros that don't waste my time. > I'm not on this > list to argue with you about what you think sucks so great you can't do > your job any more I am doing my job. Fedora packaging is not part of my job. It's something i thought I'd do as a community thing, but it's more onerous than it's worth. > well then you have -there's mailing lists for that > (friday-list@, memo-list@). It would not be appropriate to raise these fedora issues on internal Red Hat mailing lists. If I was going to fight that fight, I'd do it in public. > I'm here to collaborate, and I'll tell you what I normally, but first: > > At several points, when I address an issue on this list, you just point > me to the fact there's some kind of mystical Beta out there, which isn't > available, and doesn't compile from SVN (didn't find a beta-like tag > that would build either), I gotta query a dozen resources to get the > packages (which I obviously have not), it uses different directories for > all kinds of foo (bye bye brands), and now you dare getting in my face > about it? The beta has been extensively discussed on this list and we provided instructions on how to use the beta on the wiki. The decisions to use a different directory and the affect on brands have also been explained on this list, it's the only way I could get internal people to test it. >> The package requests have been in fedora's ridiculously bureaucratic and >> completely lacking accountability package request system for 6 weeks, if >> you want to vent at someone I suggest you direct it at the people who >> advocate that system. >> >> And yes, if I'd opened those tickets I would have closed them by now and >> not bothered with 1.0 on fedora. Bureaucracy is like a shell fish >> allergy, your tolerance is lowered every time you encounter it :/ >> > > Damn dude, your attitude sucks. It's a simple cost/benefit analysis. The cost of dealing with the process is greater than the benefit I get out of it. If I luck out and it gets done in a timely manner, good, if not I cut my losses and move on. > Here's what you should have done right from the beginning: > > Jeroen: formalpara's / tables blabla > Jeff: Yeah, whatever, fixed in Beta but not in Fedora because of: > 1) xslth > 2) that other thing > 3) whatever > (..) > 389) ohw yeah, and this... > > And you know... I would have gone through all the hoops and fixed up the > packages or whatever else needed fixing so that they would have been > accepted well within the fucking six weeks timelimit. Why does the process you are defending require special dedicated attention to get it to work in a reasonable time frame? Look at that xslthl bug again, it didn't spend 6 weeks getting changed, it spent 6 weeks sitting there after I made the changes. The two remaining deps packages spent most all of their 6 weeks sitting there with nothing happening. > And you know what, if you had just told me your boss is putting pressure > on you to make sure all kinds of foo and bar departments within Red Hat > can use Publican "we-don't-care-about-our-core-competency"-style, I > would have *perfectly well* known what you were talking about -and > helped you get the shit done, just so that it would have helped *us*. 99% of the pressure on me come from me, it's why I learned to cut my losses, fighting the wrong fight costs me too much. Cheers, Jeff. -- Jeff Fearn Software Engineer Engineering Operations Red Hat, Inc Freedom ... courage ... Commitment ... ACCOUNTABILITY From danai at debian.org Tue Oct 27 06:59:51 2009 From: danai at debian.org (=?UTF-8?B?RGFuYWkgU0FFLUhBTiAo6Z+T6YGU6ICQKQ==?=) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 07:59:51 +0100 Subject: [publican-list] Re: Suggesting /usr/share/publican instead of /usr/share/Publican In-Reply-To: <4AE4F029.8030002@redhat.com> References: <4AA42B8B.5020305@redhat.com> <4AE4F029.8030002@redhat.com> Message-ID: Hi On Monday, October 26, 2009, Jeffrey Fearn wrote: > > FYI, the path has been changed to lowercase in SVN in preparation for going live with 1.0. Thank you! Best regards -- Danai From kanarip at kanarip.com Tue Oct 27 07:36:41 2009 From: kanarip at kanarip.com (Jeroen van Meeuwen) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 08:36:41 +0100 Subject: [publican-list] Suggesting /usr/share/publican instead of /usr/share/Publican In-Reply-To: <4AE636CC.8070405@redhat.com> References: <4AA42B8B.5020305@redhat.com> <4AE540D5.4050200@kanarip.com> <4AE544EE.2020304@redhat.com> <4AE54947.3090800@kanarip.com> <4AE636CC.8070405@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4AE6A309.4060901@kanarip.com> On 10/27/2009 12:54 AM, Christopher Curran wrote: > Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: >> On 10/26/2009 07:42 AM, Ruediger Landmann wrote: >>> Try dowloading the beta from here and see if it works for you: >>> https://fedorahosted.org/publican/wiki/PublicanBetaAnnounce >>> >>> If that doesn't work, what do you need from the beta that isn't in the >>> version of Publican that you're currently using? >>> >> >> Just a few small things with bigger impact: >> >> - tables in PDF >> - correct indentation of formalpara's in orderedlists (again mainly PDF) >> > That's not the best way to use docbook. Try procedures with titles at > the beginning of steps: > > (...snip...) > Hey, that's awesome. I'll look into using this, I didn't even know it existed. Thanks! -- Jeroen