From jmorgan at redhat.com Wed Feb 2 01:17:31 2011 From: jmorgan at redhat.com (Jared Morgan) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 20:17:31 -0500 (EST) Subject: [publican-list] RFC: XSLT Enhancements for In-Reply-To: <26867541.9.1296607979976.JavaMail.jmorgan@dhcp-1-169.bne.redhat.com> Message-ID: <21707088.31.1296609442621.JavaMail.jmorgan@dhcp-1-169.bne.redhat.com> Up until now, I've been using with tags containing an overview of the procedure, and any prerequisites the reader needs to complete before continuing. A colleague recently told me that there was a element that provides better structure for procedure metadata (see Task_RFC_Structure). I've tried it out, and it works pretty well in publican now (see Task_RFC_Output_Current, tested on the Publican-JBoss brand). To bring it in line with how Procedures, Figures, and Tables are formatted, I propose the following enhancements: * Prefix the task title with "Task cc.n" (where "cc" is the chapter number the procedure is contained in, and "n" is the number of the task). * If is used, auto-generate a "Summary" title, unless the tag is explicitly used. * If <taskprerequisites> is used, auto-generate a "Prerequisites" title, unless the <title> tag is explicitly used. * Indent the <task> similar to how <example> is indented with a solid line down the left margin (for a visual reference that the content block is all part of the one <task>) Task_RFC_Output_Desired shows an example of how this would look (minus the Indent and solid line). Thoughts? Jared Morgan Content Author Red Hat Asia Pacific 1/193 North Quay BRISBANE QLD 4000 P: +61 7 3514 8242 M: +61 413 005 479 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Task_RFC_Structure.png Type: image/png Size: 17349 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/publican-list/attachments/20110201/c4b1fdf4/attachment.png> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Task_RFC_Output_Current.png Type: image/png Size: 61097 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/publican-list/attachments/20110201/c4b1fdf4/attachment-0001.png> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Task_RFC_Output_Desired.png Type: image/png Size: 63402 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/publican-list/attachments/20110201/c4b1fdf4/attachment-0002.png> From jfearn at redhat.com Wed Feb 2 02:28:15 2011 From: jfearn at redhat.com (Jeffrey Fearn) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 12:28:15 +1000 Subject: [publican-list] RFC: XSLT Enhancements for <task> In-Reply-To: <21707088.31.1296609442621.JavaMail.jmorgan@dhcp-1-169.bne.redhat.com> References: <21707088.31.1296609442621.JavaMail.jmorgan@dhcp-1-169.bne.redhat.com> Message-ID: <4D48C13F.9050408@redhat.com> Jared Morgan wrote: > Up until now, I've been using <procedure> with <para> tags containing an overview of the procedure, and any prerequisites the reader needs to complete before continuing. > > A colleague recently told me that there was a <task> element that provides better structure for procedure metadata (see Task_RFC_Structure). > > I've tried it out, and it works pretty well in publican now (see Task_RFC_Output_Current, tested on the Publican-JBoss brand). > > To bring it in line with how Procedures, Figures, and Tables are formatted, I propose the following enhancements: > > * Prefix the task title with "Task cc.n" (where "cc" is the chapter number the procedure is contained in, and "n" is the number of the task). > * If <tasksummary> is used, auto-generate a "Summary" title, unless the <title> tag is explicitly used. > * If <taskprerequisites> is used, auto-generate a "Prerequisites" title, unless the <title> tag is explicitly used. The above are all changes that should be submitted upstream, particularly so that the auto labeling can be integrated in to the translation system used to generate them. > * Indent the <task> similar to how <example> is indented with a solid line down the left margin (for a visual reference that the content block is all part of the one <task>) > > Task_RFC_Output_Desired shows an example of how this would look (minus the Indent and solid line). I don't like the bar idea, but I'd look at a mock up id someone did one. It doesn't fit the current styling at all. NOTE: it's not possible to carry translation patches for DocBook in Publican, we have to get them updated upstream. Cheers, Jeff. -- Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> Software Engineer Engineering Operations Red Hat, Inc All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. - Thomas Jefferson Perl -- It's like Java, only it lets you deliver on time and under budget. From jmorgan at redhat.com Wed Feb 2 04:58:44 2011 From: jmorgan at redhat.com (Jared Morgan) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 23:58:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: [publican-list] RFC: XSLT Enhancements for <task> In-Reply-To: <4D48C13F.9050408@redhat.com> Message-ID: <27518598.35.1296622720087.JavaMail.jmorgan@dhcp-1-169.bne.redhat.com> Hi Jeff Understood. I will approach Bec who has recently asked for changes to be made in DocBook for how to go about doing this. Can anyone tell me the usual turnaround time from proposal to DocBook to implementation? And then once implemented as a standard in DocBook, how long it would then take to roll the style support into Publican? Answers to these two points will help me make a decision whether I manually put in <title> tags into <tasksummary> or <taskprerequisites>< or leave them out in the short-term. Cheers Jared Morgan Content Author Red Hat Asia Pacific 1/193 North Quay BRISBANE QLD 4000 P: +61 7 3514 8242 M: +61 413 005 479 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeffrey Fearn" <jfearn at redhat.com> To: "Publican discussions" <publican-list at redhat.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 2, 2011 12:28:15 PM Subject: Re: [publican-list] RFC: XSLT Enhancements for <task> Jared Morgan wrote: > Up until now, I've been using <procedure> with <para> tags containing an overview of the procedure, and any prerequisites the reader needs to complete before continuing. > > A colleague recently told me that there was a <task> element that provides better structure for procedure metadata (see Task_RFC_Structure). > > I've tried it out, and it works pretty well in publican now (see Task_RFC_Output_Current, tested on the Publican-JBoss brand). > > To bring it in line with how Procedures, Figures, and Tables are formatted, I propose the following enhancements: > > * Prefix the task title with "Task cc.n" (where "cc" is the chapter number the procedure is contained in, and "n" is the number of the task). > * If <tasksummary> is used, auto-generate a "Summary" title, unless the <title> tag is explicitly used. > * If <taskprerequisites> is used, auto-generate a "Prerequisites" title, unless the <title> tag is explicitly used. The above are all changes that should be submitted upstream, particularly so that the auto labeling can be integrated in to the translation system used to generate them. > * Indent the <task> similar to how <example> is indented with a solid line down the left margin (for a visual reference that the content block is all part of the one <task>) > > Task_RFC_Output_Desired shows an example of how this would look (minus the Indent and solid line). I don't like the bar idea, but I'd look at a mock up id someone did one. It doesn't fit the current styling at all. NOTE: it's not possible to carry translation patches for DocBook in Publican, we have to get them updated upstream. Cheers, Jeff. -- Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> Software Engineer Engineering Operations Red Hat, Inc All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. - Thomas Jefferson Perl -- It's like Java, only it lets you deliver on time and under budget. _______________________________________________ publican-list mailing list publican-list at redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/publican-list Wiki: https://fedorahosted.org/publican From sbonnevi at redhat.com Thu Feb 3 20:13:36 2011 From: sbonnevi at redhat.com (Steve Bonneville) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 14:13:36 -0600 Subject: [publican-list] CJK fonts and italics Message-ID: <20110203201336.GE18039@sbonnevi.msp.redhat.com> I'm working with some rendering of material to PDF in Publican that uses CJK fonts (zh-CN, zh-TW, ko-KR, and ja-JP translations). I'm noticing that any string tagged in such a way as to set font-style to italic is getting each Unicode character rendered as missing character boxes. (In fact, it looks like it may be the non-character U+FFFF.) In particular this affects <emphasis> and <firstterm>, but I think this is a general issue with anything the brand marks as italic. I know these fonts don't have a normal italic or oblique style. So, is there something I can do to fix this? I'd be reasonably happy if they just rendered as normal-style fonts rather than as missing characters. I've tested with publican 2.2 and 2.5, docbook-style-xsl 1.75.2-6, with the Fedora brand and our custom brand, on Fedora 14. Um, fop-0.95-5 also. -- Steve -- Steven Bonneville <sbonnevi at redhat.com> Manager, Linux Curriculum Team Red Hat | Global Learning Services Phone: +1-612-638-0507 gpg: 1024D/221D06FF 68B1 3E66 A351 6485 B9AF 24D8 3DF5 B50B 221D 06FF From dlackey at redhat.com Thu Feb 3 22:15:22 2011 From: dlackey at redhat.com (Deon Lackey) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 17:15:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: [publican-list] CJK fonts and italics In-Reply-To: <20110203201336.GE18039@sbonnevi.msp.redhat.com> Message-ID: <824929901.90494.1296771322887.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> Okay, this is a really short term hack, but you?*may* be able to ?change the formatting in the inline.xsl file to something like <xsl:call-template name="inline.charseq"/> to change?emphasis firstterm ?to a normal inline ?font. That will apply to *everything* that you build to PDF. And I haven't actually tested it myself yet. Still, it's something to try. Deon ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Bonneville" <sbonnevi at redhat.com> To: publican-list at redhat.com Sent: Thursday, February 3, 2011 2:13:36 PM Subject: [publican-list] CJK fonts and italics I'm working with some rendering of material to PDF in Publican that uses CJK fonts (zh-CN, zh-TW, ko-KR, and ja-JP translations). ?I'm noticing that any string tagged in such a way as to set font-style to italic is getting each Unicode character rendered as missing character boxes. ?(In fact, it looks like it may be the non-character U+FFFF.) In particular this affects <emphasis> and <firstterm>, but I think this is a general issue with anything the brand marks as italic. I know these fonts don't have a normal italic or oblique style. ?So, is there something I can do to fix this? ?I'd be reasonably happy if they just rendered as normal-style fonts rather than as missing characters. ?I've tested with publican 2.2 and 2.5, docbook-style-xsl 1.75.2-6, with the Fedora brand and our custom brand, on Fedora 14. Um, fop-0.95-5 also. ??-- Steve -- Steven Bonneville <sbonnevi at redhat.com> Manager, Linux Curriculum Team Red Hat | Global Learning Services ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Phone: +1-612-638-0507 gpg: 1024D/221D06FF ?68B1 3E66 A351 6485 B9AF ?24D8 3DF5 B50B 221D 06FF _______________________________________________ publican-list mailing list publican-list at redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/publican-list Wiki: https://fedorahosted.org/publican -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/publican-list/attachments/20110203/d39ea117/attachment.htm> From jfearn at redhat.com Thu Feb 3 22:39:32 2011 From: jfearn at redhat.com (Jeffrey Fearn) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 08:39:32 +1000 Subject: [publican-list] CJK fonts and italics In-Reply-To: <20110203201336.GE18039@sbonnevi.msp.redhat.com> References: <20110203201336.GE18039@sbonnevi.msp.redhat.com> Message-ID: <4D4B2EA4.2070308@redhat.com> Steve Bonneville wrote: > I'm working with some rendering of material to PDF in Publican that > uses CJK fonts (zh-CN, zh-TW, ko-KR, and ja-JP translations). I'm > noticing that any string tagged in such a way as to set font-style to > italic is getting each Unicode character rendered as missing character > boxes. (In fact, it looks like it may be the non-character U+FFFF.) > In particular this affects <emphasis> and <firstterm>, but I think > this is a general issue with anything the brand marks as italic. > > I know these fonts don't have a normal italic or oblique style. So, > is there something I can do to fix this? I'd be reasonably happy if > they just rendered as normal-style fonts rather than as missing > characters. I've tested with publican 2.2 and 2.5, docbook-style-xsl > 1.75.2-6, with the Fedora brand and our custom brand, on Fedora 14. > Um, fop-0.95-5 also. It sounds like either: 1: your font cache is out of date 2: F14 is using unexpected fonts 3: the font metrics aren't being setup correctly To test if it's just the font cache run: $ rm -rf ~/.fop/fop-fonts.cache Then try rebuilding a PDF. If that doesn't help then there is an issue with the font metrics, which is more fiddly. If the above doesn't fix it, please: 1: post the results of: $ ls /usr/share/publican/fop/font-metrics/ 2: attach your /usr/share/publican/fop/fop.xconf 3: Open an affected PDF and find out the name of the font being used (File->Properties menu, then Fonts tab). Cheers, Jeff. -- Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> Software Engineer Engineering Operations Red Hat, Inc All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. - Thomas Jefferson Perl -- It's like Java, only it lets you deliver on time and under budget. From sbonnevi at redhat.com Thu Feb 3 23:08:15 2011 From: sbonnevi at redhat.com (Steve Bonneville) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 17:08:15 -0600 Subject: [publican-list] CJK fonts and italics In-Reply-To: <4D4B2EA4.2070308@redhat.com> References: <20110203201336.GE18039@sbonnevi.msp.redhat.com> <4D4B2EA4.2070308@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20110203230815.GG18039@sbonnevi.msp.redhat.com> On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 08:39:32AM +1000, Jeffrey Fearn wrote: > Steve Bonneville wrote: > >I'm working with some rendering of material to PDF in Publican > >that uses CJK fonts (zh-CN, zh-TW, ko-KR, and ja-JP translations). > >I'm > >noticing that any string tagged in such a way as to set font-style to > >italic is getting each Unicode character rendered as missing > >character boxes. (In fact, it looks like it may be the > >non-character U+FFFF.) In particular this affects <emphasis> and > ><firstterm>, but I think this is a general issue with anything the > >brand marks as italic. > > > >I know these fonts don't have a normal italic or oblique style. So, > >is there something I can do to fix this? I'd be reasonably happy if > >they just rendered as normal-style fonts rather than as missing > >characters. I've tested with publican 2.2 and 2.5, > >docbook-style-xsl 1.75.2-6, with the Fedora brand and our custom > >brand, on Fedora 14. > >Um, fop-0.95-5 also. > > It sounds like either: > 1: your font cache is out of date > 2: F14 is using unexpected fonts > 3: the font metrics aren't being setup correctly > > To test if it's just the font cache run: > > $ rm -rf ~/.fop/fop-fonts.cache > > Then try rebuilding a PDF. No luck there. Tested this time with Publican-2.2, using ja-JP XML files, if that matters. > If that doesn't help then there is an issue with the font metrics, > which is more fiddly. If the above doesn't fix it, please: > > 1: post the results of: > > $ ls /usr/share/publican/fop/font-metrics/ -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 509138 Oct 5 20:34 AR_PL_UMing_CN.xml -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 509479 Oct 5 20:34 AR_PL_UMing_TW.xml -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 437321 Oct 5 20:34 Baekmuk_Batang.xml > 2: attach your /usr/share/publican/fop/fop.xconf Attached. > 3: Open an affected PDF and find out the name of the font being used > (File->Properties menu, then Fonts tab). All fonts are TrueType (CID) embedded subset unless otherwise specified. LiberationMono-Italic IPAGothic IPAPGothic Times-Roman (Type 1, not embedded) LiberationSans-Italic LiberationSans-BoldItalic LiberationMono-BoldItalic Symbol (Type 1, not embedded) Note that roman fonts (like LibSans) work fine for italic/bold-italic, it's only if there's a tag which renders to italic around something getting set at least partially in IPAPGothic or something similar. I believe the primary body font is IPAPGothic, looking at pdf.xsl. -- Steve -- Steven Bonneville <sbonnevi at redhat.com> Manager, Linux Curriculum Team Red Hat | Global Learning Services Phone: +1-612-638-0507 gpg: 1024D/221D06FF 68B1 3E66 A351 6485 B9AF 24D8 3DF5 B50B 221D 06FF -------------- next part -------------- <?xml version="1.0"?> <fop version="1.0"> <base>.</base> <source-resolution>72</source-resolution> <target-resolution>72</target-resolution> <default-page-settings height="240mm" width="120mm"/> <renderers> <renderer mime="application/pdf"> <filterList> <value>flate</value> </filterList> <fonts> <font metrics-url="/usr/share/publican/fop/font-metrics/AR_PL_UMing_CN.xml" kerning="yes" embed-url="/usr/share/fonts/cjkuni-uming/uming.ttc"> <font-triplet name="AR PL UMing CN" style="normal" weight="normal"/> <font-triplet name="AR PL UMing CN" style="normal" weight="bold"/> <font-triplet name="AR PL UMing CN" style="italic" weight="normal"/> <font-triplet name="AR PL UMing CN" style="italic" weight="bold"/> </font> <font metrics-url="/usr/share/publican/fop/font-metrics/AR_PL_UMing_TW.xml" kerning="yes" embed-url="/usr/share/fonts/cjkuni-uming/uming.ttc"> <font-triplet name="AR PL UMing TW" style="normal" weight="normal"/> <font-triplet name="AR PL UMing TW" style="normal" weight="bold"/> <font-triplet name="AR PL UMing TW" style="italic" weight="normal"/> <font-triplet name="AR PL UMing TW" style="italic" weight="bold"/> </font> <font metrics-url="/usr/share/publican/fop/font-metrics/Baekmuk_Batang.xml" kerning="yes" embed-url="/usr/share/fonts/baekmuk-ttf/batang.ttf"> <font-triplet name="Baekmuk Batang" style="normal" weight="normal"/> <font-triplet name="Baekmuk Batang" style="normal" weight="bold"/> <font-triplet name="Baekmuk Batang" style="italic" weight="normal"/> <font-triplet name="Baekmuk Batang" style="italic" weight="bold"/> </font> <auto-detect/> </fonts> </renderer> </renderers> </fop> From jfearn at redhat.com Fri Feb 4 00:03:22 2011 From: jfearn at redhat.com (Jeffrey Fearn) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 10:03:22 +1000 Subject: [publican-list] CJK fonts and italics In-Reply-To: <20110203230815.GG18039@sbonnevi.msp.redhat.com> References: <20110203201336.GE18039@sbonnevi.msp.redhat.com> <4D4B2EA4.2070308@redhat.com> <20110203230815.GG18039@sbonnevi.msp.redhat.com> Message-ID: <4D4B424A.9050402@redhat.com> Steve Bonneville wrote: > On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 08:39:32AM +1000, Jeffrey Fearn wrote: >> Steve Bonneville wrote: >>> I'm working with some rendering of material to PDF in Publican >>> that uses CJK fonts (zh-CN, zh-TW, ko-KR, and ja-JP translations). >>> I'm >>> noticing that any string tagged in such a way as to set font-style to >>> italic is getting each Unicode character rendered as missing >>> character boxes. (In fact, it looks like it may be the >>> non-character U+FFFF.) In particular this affects <emphasis> and >>> <firstterm>, but I think this is a general issue with anything the >>> brand marks as italic. >>> >>> I know these fonts don't have a normal italic or oblique style. So, >>> is there something I can do to fix this? I'd be reasonably happy if >>> they just rendered as normal-style fonts rather than as missing >>> characters. I've tested with publican 2.2 and 2.5, >>> docbook-style-xsl 1.75.2-6, with the Fedora brand and our custom >>> brand, on Fedora 14. >>> Um, fop-0.95-5 also. >> It sounds like either: >> 1: your font cache is out of date >> 2: F14 is using unexpected fonts >> 3: the font metrics aren't being setup correctly >> >> To test if it's just the font cache run: >> >> $ rm -rf ~/.fop/fop-fonts.cache >> >> Then try rebuilding a PDF. > > No luck there. Tested this time with Publican-2.2, using ja-JP > XML files, if that matters. > >> If that doesn't help then there is an issue with the font metrics, >> which is more fiddly. If the above doesn't fix it, please: >> >> 1: post the results of: >> >> $ ls /usr/share/publican/fop/font-metrics/ > > -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 509138 Oct 5 20:34 AR_PL_UMing_CN.xml > -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 509479 Oct 5 20:34 AR_PL_UMing_TW.xml > -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 437321 Oct 5 20:34 Baekmuk_Batang.xml > >> 2: attach your /usr/share/publican/fop/fop.xconf > > Attached. > >> 3: Open an affected PDF and find out the name of the font being used >> (File->Properties menu, then Fonts tab). > > All fonts are TrueType (CID) embedded subset unless otherwise > specified. > > LiberationMono-Italic > IPAGothic > IPAPGothic > Times-Roman (Type 1, not embedded) > LiberationSans-Italic > LiberationSans-BoldItalic > LiberationMono-BoldItalic > Symbol (Type 1, not embedded) > > Note that roman fonts (like LibSans) work fine for italic/bold-italic, > it's only if there's a tag which renders to italic around something > getting set at least partially in IPAPGothic or something similar. > > I believe the primary body font is IPAPGothic, looking at pdf.xsl. Thanks Steve, looks like the font file names changed between F12 and F13 so a bunch of the metrics files aren't being created :( We will need to do a font audit and see what is going on. Cheers, Jeff. -- Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> Software Engineer Engineering Operations Red Hat, Inc All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. - Thomas Jefferson Perl -- It's like Java, only it lets you deliver on time and under budget. From sbonnevi at redhat.com Fri Feb 4 14:49:21 2011 From: sbonnevi at redhat.com (Steve Bonneville) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 08:49:21 -0600 Subject: [publican-list] CJK fonts and italics In-Reply-To: <4D4B424A.9050402@redhat.com> References: <20110203201336.GE18039@sbonnevi.msp.redhat.com> <4D4B2EA4.2070308@redhat.com> <20110203230815.GG18039@sbonnevi.msp.redhat.com> <4D4B424A.9050402@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20110204144920.GG1925@sbonnevi.msp.redhat.com> On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 10:03:22AM +1000, Jeffrey Fearn wrote: > Thanks Steve, looks like the font file names changed between F12 and > F13 so a bunch of the metrics files aren't being created :( Bummer. :( > We will need to do a font audit and see what is going on. Is there anything I can do in the short term to create them properly by hand to work around this? Or is my best bet to fall back to F12 for building the PDFs? Thanks! -- Steve -- Steven Bonneville <sbonnevi at redhat.com> Manager, Linux Curriculum Team Red Hat | Global Learning Services Phone: +1-612-638-0507 gpg: 1024D/221D06FF 68B1 3E66 A351 6485 B9AF 24D8 3DF5 B50B 221D 06FF From david at gnsa.us Sat Feb 5 19:21:56 2011 From: david at gnsa.us (David Nalley) Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 14:21:56 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] Problem with tables containing itemizedlist (PDF rendering) Message-ID: <AANLkTi=j4tmrC9g=b4KNCZUnBN7VnJ8CsVfXoNFwgLZA@mail.gmail.com> I think this is likely a FOP problem but I have a table which has an itemizedlist within an entry. In html this is rendered properly, but in PDF, when a line wraps, the table line effectively strikes through it. Screenshot here: http://ke4qqq.fedorapeople.org/snapshot1.png Any thoughts on fixing it? From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 7 20:13:20 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 15:13:20 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 642127] %changelog doesn't follow packaging Version Release format with publican 'package' action In-Reply-To: <bug-642127-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> References: <bug-642127-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> Message-ID: <201102072013.p17KDKbk000671@bzweb01.app.bz.hst.phx2.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=642127 Deon Lackey <dlackey at redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dlackey 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 jfearn at redhat.com Mon Feb 7 22:52:14 2011 From: jfearn at redhat.com (Jeff Fearn) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 08:52:14 +1000 Subject: [publican-list] Problem with tables containing itemizedlist (PDF rendering) In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=j4tmrC9g=b4KNCZUnBN7VnJ8CsVfXoNFwgLZA@mail.gmail.com> References: <AANLkTi=j4tmrC9g=b4KNCZUnBN7VnJ8CsVfXoNFwgLZA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1297119134.2911.7.camel@cranium.bne.redhat.com> On Sat, 2011-02-05 at 14:21 -0500, David Nalley wrote: > I think this is likely a FOP problem but I have a table which has an > itemizedlist within an entry. > > In html this is rendered properly, but in PDF, when a line wraps, the > table line effectively strikes through it. > > Screenshot here: > http://ke4qqq.fedorapeople.org/snapshot1.png > > Any thoughts on fixing it? Hi David, there is a script in the repo, fop-ttc-metric.pl, used to create the metrics files. If you d/l that, fixed the font paths for IPAGothic and IPAPGothic in the hash, and run it as root, it should fix this issue. UNTESTED: $ perl fop-ttc-metric.pl --conffile /usr/share/publican/fop/fop.xconf --outdir /usr/share/publican/fop/font-metrics We need to do an audit of the paths on all supported platforms and then handle any variance before we can ship a fix. Cheers, Jeff. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 10 00:19:41 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 19:19:41 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 676472] New: Koji doesn't like Publican-produced SRPMs Message-ID: <bug-676472-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Koji doesn't like Publican-produced SRPMs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=676472 Summary: Koji doesn't like Publican-produced SRPMs Product: Publican Version: 2.5 Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: publican AssignedTo: jfearn at redhat.com ReportedBy: eric at christensenplace.us QAContact: rlandman at redhat.com CC: mmcallis at redhat.com, publican-list at redhat.com Classification: Other Description of problem: When submitting a SRPM built by Publican to Koji the build fails. Full details can be found at http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2803126. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 2.5-1.fc14 -- 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 Feb 10 03:05:14 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 22:05:14 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 676472] Koji doesn't like Publican-produced SRPMs In-Reply-To: <bug-676472-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> References: <bug-676472-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> Message-ID: <201102100305.p1A35EGQ029331@bzweb01.app.bz.hst.phx2.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=676472 --- Comment #1 from Ruediger Landmann <r.landmann at redhat.com> 2011-02-09 22:05:14 EST --- Created attachment 477948 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=477948 Example spec file that demonstrates 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 Thu Feb 10 06:21:41 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 01:21:41 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 676472] Koji doesn't like Publican-produced SRPMs In-Reply-To: <bug-676472-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> References: <bug-676472-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> Message-ID: <201102100621.p1A6LfMJ021529@bzweb01.app.bz.hst.phx2.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=676472 Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED --- Comment #2 from Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> 2011-02-10 01:21:38 EST --- This problem exists for desktop packages only. Fixed in revision 1711. -- 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 Sat Feb 12 12:45:15 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2011 07:45:15 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 676997] New: Typos in Publican messages Message-ID: <bug-676997-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Typos in Publican messages https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=676997 Summary: Typos in Publican messages Product: Publican Version: future Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: low Priority: unspecified Component: publican AssignedTo: jfearn at redhat.com ReportedBy: yurchor at ukr.net QAContact: rlandman at redhat.com CC: mmcallis at redhat.com, publican-list at redhat.com Classification: Other Created attachment 478377 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=478377 Patch to correct the typos Description of problem: Some Publican messages contain typos Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): SVN trunk How reproducible: always Steps to Reproduce: Open the files from the patch attached. Actual results: seperated skiping existant dirctory syncronised manadory enrty Expected results: separated skipping existent directory synchronised mandatory entry Additional info: Thanks for correcting these typos and updating translation template. -- 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 Sun Feb 13 14:21:48 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 09:21:48 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 677119] 'Preface' string missing from Publican conventions.pot file In-Reply-To: <bug-677119-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> References: <bug-677119-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> Message-ID: <201102131421.p1DELmgP000611@bzweb02.app.bz.hst.phx2.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=677119 Thomas Canniot <thomas.canniot at mrtomlinux.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |i18n -- 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 Sun Feb 13 14:20:57 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 09:20:57 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 677119] New: 'Preface' string missing from Publican conventions.pot file Message-ID: <bug-677119-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: 'Preface' string missing from Publican conventions.pot file https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=677119 Summary: 'Preface' string missing from Publican conventions.pot file Product: Publican Version: 2.5 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Component: publican AssignedTo: jfearn at redhat.com ReportedBy: thomas.canniot at mrtomlinux.org QAContact: rlandman at redhat.com CC: mmcallis at redhat.com, publican-list at redhat.com Classification: Other Description of problem: The 'Preface' string is not present inside the conventions.pot file of Publican. 'Preface' is translated 'Pr?face' in French and thus this string must be translatable. See an example of untranslated 'Preface' in French documentation : http://mrtom.fedorapeople.org/power-management-guide-draft/fr-FR/html-single/#pref-blank-Preface Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): publican-doc-2.5-1.fc14.noarch publican-fedora-2.0-0.fc14.noarch publican-2.5-1.fc14.noarch How reproducible: always With regards, -- 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 Sun Feb 13 23:41:22 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 18:41:22 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 677119] RFE: Make template content in CreateBook.pm translatable In-Reply-To: <bug-677119-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> References: <bug-677119-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> Message-ID: <201102132341.p1DNfMDq013574@bzweb02.app.bz.hst.phx2.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=677119 Ruediger Landmann <r.landmann at redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |r.landmann at redhat.com Summary|'Preface' string missing |RFE: Make template content |from Publican |in CreateBook.pm |conventions.pot file |translatable --- Comment #1 from Ruediger Landmann <r.landmann at redhat.com> 2011-02-13 18:41:21 EST --- (In reply to comment #0) > Description of problem: > The 'Preface' string is not present inside the conventions.pot file of > Publican. 'Preface' is translated 'Pr?face' in French and thus this string must > be translatable. Hi Thomas The "Preface" string belongs to the *book* not to Publican and is therefore already translatable. For example, look in the Preface.po file of any book and you will find an msgid for the <title> of the <preface> (by default, "Preface") That said, I think we should make the template strings translatable in the Publican POT file. Note that these translated strings will only be included in books originally created in the corresponding language. They would include the "Preface" title and some boilerplate content that we add to newly-created books like "This is a test paragraph." English translators would then need to translate "Pr?face" to "Preface" in their Preface.po file. Cheers Rudi -- 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 Feb 14 00:04:02 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 19:04:02 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 676997] Typos in Publican messages In-Reply-To: <bug-676997-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> References: <bug-676997-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> Message-ID: <201102140004.p1E042dd019108@bzweb02.app.bz.hst.phx2.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=676997 Ruediger Landmann <r.landmann at redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |r.landmann at redhat.com AssignedTo|jfearn at redhat.com |r.landmann at redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Ruediger Landmann <r.landmann at redhat.com> 2011-02-13 19:04:02 EST --- Thanks for the patch, Yuri; applied in commit 1713 -- we'll generate a new POT file shortly. Cheers Rudi -- 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 Feb 14 00:30:31 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 19:30:31 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 676997] Typos in Publican messages In-Reply-To: <bug-676997-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> References: <bug-676997-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> Message-ID: <201102140030.p1E0UV3c019884@bzweb01.app.bz.hst.phx2.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=676997 Ruediger Landmann <r.landmann at redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |ON_QA --- Comment #2 from Ruediger Landmann <r.landmann at redhat.com> 2011-02-13 19:30:31 EST --- PO files updated; thanks again. -- 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 Feb 14 03:10:46 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 22:10:46 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 676472] Koji doesn't like Publican-produced SRPMs In-Reply-To: <bug-676472-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> References: <bug-676472-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> Message-ID: <201102140310.p1E3AkAI028496@bzweb01.app.bz.hst.phx2.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=676472 --- Comment #3 from Eric Christensen <eric at christensenplace.us> 2011-02-13 22:10:45 EST --- The update that Rudi provided fixes the problem. 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 Mon Feb 14 06:22:20 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 01:22:20 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 673402] Creating a (distributed) set creates invalid docbook In-Reply-To: <bug-673402-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> References: <bug-673402-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> Message-ID: <201102140622.p1E6MKBR032434@bzweb02.app.bz.hst.phx2.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=673402 Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |NEW --- Comment #2 from Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> 2011-02-14 01:22:20 EST --- oops, comment id for a different bug ... how embarrassment! -- 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 Feb 14 06:21:59 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 01:21:59 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 677119] RFE: Make template content in CreateBook.pm translatable In-Reply-To: <bug-677119-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> References: <bug-677119-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> Message-ID: <201102140621.p1E6Lxdc032335@bzweb02.app.bz.hst.phx2.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=677119 Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED --- Comment #2 from Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> 2011-02-14 01:21:58 EST --- Added many calls to maketext to allow default texts to be translated for create book. Committed revision 1716. -- 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 Feb 14 06:21:29 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 01:21:29 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 673402] Creating a (distributed) set creates invalid docbook In-Reply-To: <bug-673402-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> References: <bug-673402-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> Message-ID: <201102140621.p1E6LTBq025838@bzweb01.app.bz.hst.phx2.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=673402 Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED --- Comment #1 from Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> 2011-02-14 01:21:28 EST --- Added many calls to maketext to allow default texts to be translated for create book. Committed revision 1716. -- 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 Feb 16 06:59:15 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 01:59:15 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 677869] New: publican package does not work with conditional book_info.xml Message-ID: <bug-677869-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: publican package does not work with conditional book_info.xml https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=677869 Summary: publican package does not work with conditional book_info.xml Product: Publican Version: future Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: publican AssignedTo: jfearn at redhat.com ReportedBy: lbailey at redhat.com QAContact: rlandman at redhat.com CC: mmcallis at redhat.com, publican-list at redhat.com Classification: Other Description of problem: I have two products to document, which are so similar that I decided to use conditional tags and one source document instead of making two books. To do so, I made separate Book_Info.xml files - Book_Info_A.xml and Book_Info_B.xml. Publican builds these books just fine for either product, but the "publican package" command complains of a lack of Book_Info.xml. Is it possible to get the package command to check for the <bookinfo> element instead of the Book_Info.xml file? --- Workarounds Attempted: First, I tried adding <phrase condition="a">A</phrase><phrase condition="b">B</phrase> to the subtitle, productname, etc. tags. This results in an incorrect packagename: JBoss_Enterprise_ApplicationWeb_Platform-6.0.0_Release_Notes-6-web-en-US-6.0.0-1.el5 instead of JBoss_Enterprise_Application_Platform-6.0.0_Release_Notes-6-web-en-US-6.0.0-1.el5 or JBoss_Enterprise_Web_Platform-6.0.0_Release_Notes-6-web-en-US-6.0.0-1.el5 depending on the condition set in publican.cfg. Next I tried adding the condition to the productname tag, but in this case publican package just grabs the content of whichever <productname> comes first in the file, regardless of the condition that is set. Of the two workarounds, I think this one makes the most sense, if we absolutely must use Book_Info.xml as the container for the <bookinfo> element. --- Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): publican-2.5-1.fc13.noarch --- How reproducible: Every time. --- Steps to Reproduce: Try to brew a book whose <productname> is conditional. Examples here: https://svn.devel.redhat.com/repos/ecs/JBoss_Enterprise_Application_Platform/trunk/6/ --- Actual results: Incorrect packagename. --- Expected results: Correct packagename. -- 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 Feb 16 07:05:38 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 02:05:38 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 677869] publican package does not work with conditional book_info.xml In-Reply-To: <bug-677869-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> References: <bug-677869-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> Message-ID: <201102160705.p1G75c52011550@bzweb02.app.bz.hst.phx2.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=677869 --- Comment #1 from Laura Bailey <lbailey at redhat.com> 2011-02-16 02:05:37 EST --- On closer inspection, publican build doesn't work without a Book_Info.xml either, even if it's not 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 Feb 16 07:07:38 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 02:07:38 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 651616] key combinations are separated with plus, not hyphen. In-Reply-To: <bug-651616-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> References: <bug-651616-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> Message-ID: <201102160707.p1G77cON011981@bzweb02.app.bz.hst.phx2.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=651616 Alison Young <alyoung at redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|660526 | -- 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 Feb 16 22:23:14 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 17:23:14 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 677869] publican package does not work with conditional book_info.xml In-Reply-To: <bug-677869-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> References: <bug-677869-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> Message-ID: <201102162223.p1GMNEC4023209@bzweb01.app.bz.hst.phx2.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=677869 --- Comment #2 from Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> 2011-02-16 17:23:13 EST --- Publican only uses <type>_Info.xml to source variables from. If you want to do non-standard things, then you have to use the configuration files for that. If you set product, version, release, etc, in the cfg files then publican should not use <type>_Info.xml at all, so you can have any structure you like for your bookinfo. -- 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 Feb 17 00:25:28 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 19:25:28 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 677869] publican package does not work with conditional book_info.xml In-Reply-To: <bug-677869-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> References: <bug-677869-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> Message-ID: <201102170025.p1H0PSA9015017@bzweb01.app.bz.hst.phx2.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=677869 --- Comment #3 from Laura Bailey <lbailey at redhat.com> 2011-02-16 19:25:28 EST --- Awesome, thanks 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 Feb 17 01:02:54 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 20:02:54 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 677869] publican package does not work with conditional book_info.xml In-Reply-To: <bug-677869-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> References: <bug-677869-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> Message-ID: <201102170102.p1H12sTk022379@bzweb01.app.bz.hst.phx2.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=677869 --- Comment #4 from Laura Bailey <lbailey at redhat.com> 2011-02-16 20:02:54 EST --- Setting the product in the cfg file solves the initial problem, but I have discovered a related issue: the PDF name and brew package name is still based on the bookname.xml filename, instead of the title given in the bookinfo element. Defining the bookname in the cfg file makes Publican search for a file of that name. This means that I need a separate bookname.xml for each conditional book, which somewhat defeats the purpose of having a single source. Any ideas? -- 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 Feb 17 01:25:25 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 20:25:25 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 677869] publican package does not work with conditional book_info.xml In-Reply-To: <bug-677869-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> References: <bug-677869-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> Message-ID: <201102170125.p1H1PP3u027024@bzweb01.app.bz.hst.phx2.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=677869 --- Comment #5 from Laura Bailey <lbailey at redhat.com> 2011-02-16 20:25:25 EST --- I tell a lie: packagename and PDF name are based on the first <title> element discovered in Book_Info.xml, regardless of conditions. -- 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 Feb 17 03:09:35 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 22:09:35 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 678186] update_po produces inconsistent results In-Reply-To: <bug-678186-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> References: <bug-678186-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> Message-ID: <201102170309.p1H39ZFu025179@bzweb02.app.bz.hst.phx2.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=678186 --- Comment #1 from Ruediger Landmann <r.landmann at redhat.com> 2011-02-16 22:09:34 EST --- Created attachment 479257 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=479257 PO file with the extra lines -- 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 Feb 17 03:10:32 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 22:10:32 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 678186] update_po produces inconsistent results In-Reply-To: <bug-678186-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> References: <bug-678186-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> Message-ID: <201102170310.p1H3AWSq025603@bzweb02.app.bz.hst.phx2.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=678186 --- Comment #2 from Ruediger Landmann <r.landmann at redhat.com> 2011-02-16 22:10:31 EST --- Created attachment 479258 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=479258 PO file without the extra lines -- update_po doesn't add them in. -- 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 Feb 17 03:08:48 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 22:08:48 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 678186] New: update_po produces inconsistent results Message-ID: <bug-678186-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: update_po produces inconsistent results https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678186 Summary: update_po produces inconsistent results Product: Publican Version: 2.5 Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: publican AssignedTo: jfearn at redhat.com ReportedBy: r.landmann at redhat.com QAContact: rlandman at redhat.com CC: mmcallis at redhat.com, publican-list at redhat.com Classification: Other Created attachment 479256 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=479256 example XML file Description of problem: Publican sometimes includes lines in msgid entries in PO files that contain nothing but two sets of quote marks. This happens when the corresponding XML file includes a <screen> element with a carriage return before the closing tag. For example: <screen> rhnpush --server=http://localhost/APP -c 'rhel-5.3-beta' -d /var/satellite/custom-distro/rhel-i386-server-5.3-beta/Server/ </screen> is represented in the PO file as: #. Tag: screen #, no-c-format msgid "\n" "rhnpush --server=http://localhost/APP -c 'rhel-5.3-beta' -d /var/satellite/custom-distro/rhel-i386-server-5.3-beta/Server/\n" "" msgstr "" If Publican updates a PO file with an msgid that matches except for the extra line, Publican doesn't add this line. For example, update_po does not change this entry: #. Tag: screen #, no-c-format msgid "\n" "rhnpush --server=http://localhost/APP -c 'rhel-5.3-beta' -d /var/satellite/custom-distro/rhel-i386-server-5.3-beta/Server/\n" msgstr "" We have examples of books where PO files lack these lines for reasons that are unclear. These lines aren't a problem in themselves, but Publican also counts each of these lines as a word when you run publican lang_stats -- which means that the word count for different languages might be different. This doesn't impact on translation directly, but can make life interesting for anyone managing a translation project; the word counts that lang_stats produces serve as a crude but handy checksum to make sure that all members of a translation team are working on up-to-date PO files. When different languages report different word counts, it's not immediately obvious that everyone's translating the same thing :) Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 2.5-1 How reproducible: 100% Steps to Reproduce: 1. generate a PO file from an XML file that includes a <screen> element with its closing tag on a new line 2. run lang_stats on the target language and note the result 3. edit the PO file to remove any lines in msgid entries that consist only of '""' 4. run lang_stats on the target language and note the result 5. run publican update_po to refresh the PO file 6. open the PO file to note that the '""' lines are not restored 7. run lang_stats on the PO file yet again and note the result Actual results: results in steps 4 and 7 are the same, but differ from result in step 2 Expected results: same results in steps 2, 4, and 7 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 Thu Feb 17 05:08:35 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 00:08:35 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 671053] Stand-alone sets can't find book Common Content In-Reply-To: <bug-671053-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> References: <bug-671053-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> Message-ID: <201102170508.p1H58ZZC008049@bzweb01.app.bz.hst.phx2.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=671053 Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|jfearn 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 Feb 17 05:09:48 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 00:09:48 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 654939] Publican ignores format attribute in imagedata In-Reply-To: <bug-654939-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> References: <bug-654939-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> Message-ID: <201102170509.p1H59mAg008401@bzweb01.app.bz.hst.phx2.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=654939 Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|jfearn 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 Feb 17 06:00:27 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 01:00:27 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 661569] [RFE] Replace msgmerge In-Reply-To: <bug-661569-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> References: <bug-661569-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> Message-ID: <201102170600.p1H60Rxb029746@bzweb02.app.bz.hst.phx2.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=661569 Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED --- Comment #1 from Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> 2011-02-17 01:00:26 EST --- I have checked in a patch to trunk that enables using String::Similarity when merging POT changes. --TEST_PO_MERGE has been added to allow testing the new code path: $ publican update_po --langs de-DE --TEST_PO_MERGE Needs some serious testing. -- 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 sbonnevi at redhat.com Thu Feb 17 23:49:31 2011 From: sbonnevi at redhat.com (Steve Bonneville) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 17:49:31 -0600 Subject: [publican-list] CJK fonts and italics In-Reply-To: <4D4B424A.9050402@redhat.com> References: <20110203201336.GE18039@sbonnevi.msp.redhat.com> <4D4B2EA4.2070308@redhat.com> <20110203230815.GG18039@sbonnevi.msp.redhat.com> <4D4B424A.9050402@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20110217234931.GF13780@sbonnevi.msp.redhat.com> Further followup on the CJK font issue. The context, again -- On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 10:03:22AM +1000, Jeffrey Fearn wrote: > Steve Bonneville wrote: > >On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 08:39:32AM +1000, Jeffrey Fearn wrote: > >>Steve Bonneville wrote: > >>>I'm working with some rendering of material to PDF in Publican > >>>that uses CJK fonts (zh-CN, zh-TW, ko-KR, and ja-JP translations). > >>>I'm > >>>noticing that any string tagged in such a way as to set font-style to > >>>italic is getting each Unicode character rendered as missing > >>>character boxes. (In fact, it looks like it may be the > >>>non-character U+FFFF.) In particular this affects <emphasis> and > >>><firstterm>, but I think this is a general issue with anything the > >>>brand marks as italic. > >>> > >>>I know these fonts don't have a normal italic or oblique style. So, > >>>is there something I can do to fix this? I'd be reasonably happy if > >>>they just rendered as normal-style fonts rather than as missing > >>>characters. I've tested with publican 2.2 and 2.5, > >>>docbook-style-xsl 1.75.2-6, with the Fedora brand and our custom > >>>brand, on Fedora 14. > >>>Um, fop-0.95-5 also. [...] > Thanks Steve, looks like the font file names changed between F12 and > F13 so a bunch of the metrics files aren't being created :( > > We will need to do a font audit and see what is going on. Okay, it looks like the fop-ttc-metric.pl script in the source tree has a bunch of incorrect font paths hardcoded into it for ja-JP. Attaching a patch to fix paths that have clear corrections. It looks like we don't ship "ZYSong18030" or "AR PL ShanHeiSun Uni" anymore, I think the "AR PL UMing *" fonts replace them. Left those alone anyway. -- Steve -- Steven Bonneville <sbonnevi at redhat.com> Manager, Linux Curriculum Team Red Hat | Global Learning Services Phone: +1-612-638-0507 gpg: 1024D/221D06FF 68B1 3E66 A351 6485 B9AF 24D8 3DF5 B50B 221D 06FF -------------- next part -------------- --- fop-ttc-metric.pl.orig 2010-12-02 18:33:33.000000000 -0600 +++ fop-ttc-metric.pl 2011-02-17 17:45:56.259119880 -0600 @@ -64,12 +64,12 @@ weight => [ 'normal', 'bold' ], }, 'IPAGothic' => { - path => '/usr/share/fonts/ipa-gothic/ipag.otf', + path => '/usr/share/fonts/ipa-gothic/ipag.ttf', style => [ 'normal', 'italic' ], weight => [ 'normal', 'bold' ], }, 'IPAPGothic' => { - path => '/usr/share/fonts/ipa-pgothic/ipagp.otf', + path => '/usr/share/fonts/ipa-pgothic/ipagp.ttf', style => [ 'normal', 'italic' ], weight => [ 'normal', 'bold' ], }, @@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ }, 'Sazanami Gothic' => { path => - '/usr/share/fonts/japanese/TrueType/sazanami-gothic.ttf', + '/usr/share/fonts/sazanami/gothic/sazanami-gothic.ttf', style => [ 'normal', 'italic' ], weight => [ 'normal', 'bold' ], }, From jfearn at redhat.com Fri Feb 18 00:08:14 2011 From: jfearn at redhat.com (Jeff Fearn) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 10:08:14 +1000 Subject: [publican-list] CJK fonts and italics In-Reply-To: <20110217234931.GF13780@sbonnevi.msp.redhat.com> References: <20110203201336.GE18039@sbonnevi.msp.redhat.com> <4D4B2EA4.2070308@redhat.com> <20110203230815.GG18039@sbonnevi.msp.redhat.com> <4D4B424A.9050402@redhat.com> <20110217234931.GF13780@sbonnevi.msp.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1297987694.1188.3.camel@cranium.bne.redhat.com> On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 17:49 -0600, Steve Bonneville wrote: > Further followup on the CJK font issue. The context, again -- > > On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 10:03:22AM +1000, Jeffrey Fearn wrote: > > Steve Bonneville wrote: > > >On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 08:39:32AM +1000, Jeffrey Fearn wrote: > > >>Steve Bonneville wrote: > > >>>I'm working with some rendering of material to PDF in Publican > > >>>that uses CJK fonts (zh-CN, zh-TW, ko-KR, and ja-JP translations). > > >>>I'm > > >>>noticing that any string tagged in such a way as to set font-style to > > >>>italic is getting each Unicode character rendered as missing > > >>>character boxes. (In fact, it looks like it may be the > > >>>non-character U+FFFF.) In particular this affects <emphasis> and > > >>><firstterm>, but I think this is a general issue with anything the > > >>>brand marks as italic. > > >>> > > >>>I know these fonts don't have a normal italic or oblique style. So, > > >>>is there something I can do to fix this? I'd be reasonably happy if > > >>>they just rendered as normal-style fonts rather than as missing > > >>>characters. I've tested with publican 2.2 and 2.5, > > >>>docbook-style-xsl 1.75.2-6, with the Fedora brand and our custom > > >>>brand, on Fedora 14. > > >>>Um, fop-0.95-5 also. > > [...] > > > Thanks Steve, looks like the font file names changed between F12 and > > F13 so a bunch of the metrics files aren't being created :( > > > > We will need to do a font audit and see what is going on. > > Okay, it looks like the fop-ttc-metric.pl script in the source tree > has a bunch of incorrect font paths hardcoded into it for ja-JP. > Attaching a patch to fix paths that have clear corrections. > > It looks like we don't ship "ZYSong18030" or "AR PL ShanHeiSun Uni" > anymore, I think the "AR PL UMing *" fonts replace them. Left those > alone anyway. That script runs for RHEL5, RHEL6, and 3 Fedora versions. The Fedora font paths keep changing. :( At some time some of the fonts switched to/from being font collections, so we need to figure out when that happened and handle it appropriately. Ugly stuff eh :) Cheers, Jeff. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 18 04:35:11 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 23:35:11 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 618262] xref in legalnotice can cause the "growing nodeset" error In-Reply-To: <bug-618262-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> References: <bug-618262-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> Message-ID: <201102180435.p1I4ZBAJ024535@bzweb01.app.bz.hst.phx2.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=618262 --- Comment #5 from Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> 2011-02-17 23:35:10 EST --- Just a note that I am still poking around this issue when I get some time to tinker. It turns out that you can have xrefs in the legal notice if you don't generate an index ... crazy stuff. -- 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 nb at fedoraproject.org Tue Feb 22 12:13:33 2011 From: nb at fedoraproject.org (Nick Bebout) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 06:13:33 -0600 Subject: [publican-list] [Fwd: Re: r1722 - in trunk/publican-fedora: . .tx] Message-ID: <4f186bf731bc9dd7b421d479831f869c.squirrel@mail.bebout.net> Per jfearn's request, forwarding this to publican-list. Nick ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: Re: r1722 - in trunk/publican-fedora: . .tx From: "Nick Bebout" <nick at bebout.net> Date: Tue, February 22, 2011 6:07 am To: "jfearn at redhat.com" <jfearn at redhat.com> Cc: "nb at fedoraproject.org" <nb at fedoraproject.org> "Ruediger Landmann" <rlandman at redhat.com> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fedora is now doing translations through transifex.net, instead of running our own transifex instance. The .tx/config are what maps "resources" in the transifex site to the pot and po's in the source repository. For what it's worth, .tx/config would be needed, even if Fedora upgraded our current transifex to 1.0 or higher. The only difference would be the URL at the top of the file. (the way I understand it is Fedora provides translations for both publican and publican-fedora, but please correct me if that is not true.) We can live without having the .tx/config file stored in svn, but it'll be harder because rudi and I (or whoever) will have to make our own copy (or send each other a copy) before updating the pot on tx.net or pulling the updated po's to update in svn. I would request you allow the .tx/config files to be stored in svn again. Nick Sent from my iPhone On Feb 21, 2011, at 23:41, Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> wrote: > I am not happy with having content for commercial enterprises in the > Publican repository. Doing so without discussing this on the Publican > list is unacceptable, please start a discussion now. > > Cheers, Jeff. > > On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 04:12 +0000, nb at fedoraproject.org wrote: >> Author: nb >> Date: 2011-02-22 04:12:36 +0000 (Tue, 22 Feb 2011) >> New Revision: 1722 >> >> Added: >> trunk/publican-fedora/.tx/ >> trunk/publican-fedora/.tx/config >> Log: >> Add publican-fedora/.tx/config >> >> >> Added: trunk/publican-fedora/.tx/config >> =================================================================== >> --- trunk/publican-fedora/.tx/config (rev 0) >> +++ trunk/publican-fedora/.tx/config 2011-02-22 04:12:36 UTC (rev 1722) >> @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ >> +[main] >> +host = https://www.transifex.net >> + >> +[publican-fedora.Feedback] >> +file_filter = <lang>/Feedback.po >> +source_file = pot/Feedback.pot >> +source_lang = en >> + >> +[publican-fedora.Logos] >> +file_filter = <lang>/Logos.po >> +source_file = pot/Logos.pot >> +source_lang = en >> + >> > > > From jfearn at redhat.com Tue Feb 22 21:57:16 2011 From: jfearn at redhat.com (Jeff Fearn) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 07:57:16 +1000 Subject: [publican-list] [Fwd: Re: r1722 - in trunk/publican-fedora: . .tx] In-Reply-To: <4f186bf731bc9dd7b421d479831f869c.squirrel@mail.bebout.net> References: <4f186bf731bc9dd7b421d479831f869c.squirrel@mail.bebout.net> Message-ID: <1298411836.25340.35.camel@cranium.bne.redhat.com> Just to clue people in on what has actually happened. Fedora infrastructure has been running an instance of Transifex for some time. This installation has been plagued by terrible performance and an almost complete inability to maintain or upgrade it. AIUI almost all of these issues are related to the software itself. Travel forward to recent times when Fedora decided not to host an instance anymore, because it's unmaintainable, and so decided to migrate hosted applications without going to the rather obvious step of asking the associated projects if it was OK to migrate them to a commercial entities site. Now I for one am rather hesitant to move to a hosted commercial instance run by people who make software that a team of people can't update or maintain. I'm double hesitant when the whole migration process was done without public consultation with the projects themselves. At this point I'm willing to wield my Project Leaders Veto on accepting transifex.net content. Giving commercial entities rights over our name and sources is a serious step, doing it without due consideration is rather foolish, and doing it on other peoples behalf is morally offensive and pretty much illegal. Cheers, Jeff. On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 06:13 -0600, Nick Bebout wrote: > Per jfearn's request, forwarding this to publican-list. > > Nick > ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- > Subject: Re: r1722 - in trunk/publican-fedora: . .tx > From: "Nick Bebout" <nick at bebout.net> > Date: Tue, February 22, 2011 6:07 am > To: "jfearn at redhat.com" <jfearn at redhat.com> > Cc: "nb at fedoraproject.org" <nb at fedoraproject.org> > "Ruediger Landmann" <rlandman at redhat.com> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Fedora is now doing translations through transifex.net, instead of running > our own transifex instance. The .tx/config are what maps "resources" in > the transifex site to the pot and po's in the source repository. For what > it's worth, .tx/config would be needed, even if Fedora upgraded our > current transifex to 1.0 or higher. The only difference would be the URL > at the top of the file. (the way I understand it is Fedora provides > translations for both publican and publican-fedora, but please correct me > if that is not true.) > > We can live without having the .tx/config file stored in svn, but it'll be > harder because rudi and I (or whoever) will have to make our own copy (or > send each other a copy) before updating the pot on tx.net or pulling the > updated po's to update in svn. > > I would request you allow the .tx/config files to be stored in svn again. > > Nick > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Feb 21, 2011, at 23:41, Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> wrote: > > > I am not happy with having content for commercial enterprises in the > > Publican repository. Doing so without discussing this on the Publican > > list is unacceptable, please start a discussion now. > > > > Cheers, Jeff. > > > > On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 04:12 +0000, nb at fedoraproject.org wrote: > >> Author: nb > >> Date: 2011-02-22 04:12:36 +0000 (Tue, 22 Feb 2011) > >> New Revision: 1722 > >> > >> Added: > >> trunk/publican-fedora/.tx/ > >> trunk/publican-fedora/.tx/config > >> Log: > >> Add publican-fedora/.tx/config > >> > >> > >> Added: trunk/publican-fedora/.tx/config > >> =================================================================== > >> --- trunk/publican-fedora/.tx/config (rev 0) > >> +++ trunk/publican-fedora/.tx/config 2011-02-22 04:12:36 UTC (rev 1722) > >> @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ > >> +[main] > >> +host = https://www.transifex.net > >> + > >> +[publican-fedora.Feedback] > >> +file_filter = <lang>/Feedback.po > >> +source_file = pot/Feedback.pot > >> +source_lang = en > >> + > >> +[publican-fedora.Logos] > >> +file_filter = <lang>/Logos.po > >> +source_file = pot/Logos.pot > >> +source_lang = en > >> + > >> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > publican-list mailing list > publican-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/publican-list > Wiki: https://fedorahosted.org/publican From dlackey at redhat.com Tue Feb 22 22:16:24 2011 From: dlackey at redhat.com (Deon Lackey) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 17:16:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: [publican-list] [Fwd: Re: r1722 - in trunk/publican-fedora: . .tx] In-Reply-To: <1298411836.25340.35.camel@cranium.bne.redhat.com> Message-ID: <526984663.171942.1298412984919.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> I'm just curious: doesn't nixing transifex.net content effectively shut down translations? Or does it simply make it more difficult on Nick and Rudi but not change the ultimate process (meaning, the translations are still done on tx.net)? I'm not familiar with the Fedora translation process. What's the end result of this? Deon ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Fearn" <jfearn at redhat.com> To: "Publican discussions" <publican-list at redhat.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 3:57:16 PM Subject: Re: [publican-list] [Fwd: Re: r1722 - in trunk/publican-fedora: . .tx] Just to clue people in on what has actually happened. Fedora infrastructure has been running an instance of Transifex for some time. This installation has been plagued by terrible performance and an almost complete inability to maintain or upgrade it. AIUI almost all of these issues are related to the software itself. Travel forward to recent times when Fedora decided not to host an instance anymore, because it's unmaintainable, and so decided to migrate hosted applications without going to the rather obvious step of asking the associated projects if it was OK to migrate them to a commercial entities site. Now I for one am rather hesitant to move to a hosted commercial instance run by people who make software that a team of people can't update or maintain. I'm double hesitant when the whole migration process was done without public consultation with the projects themselves. At this point I'm willing to wield my Project Leaders Veto on accepting transifex.net content. Giving commercial entities rights over our name and sources is a serious step, doing it without due consideration is rather foolish, and doing it on other peoples behalf is morally offensive and pretty much illegal. Cheers, Jeff. On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 06:13 -0600, Nick Bebout wrote: > Per jfearn's request, forwarding this to publican-list. > > Nick > ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- > Subject: Re: r1722 - in trunk/publican-fedora: . .tx > From: ? ?"Nick Bebout" <nick at bebout.net> > Date: ? ?Tue, February 22, 2011 6:07 am > To: ? ? ?"jfearn at redhat.com" <jfearn at redhat.com> > Cc: ? ? ?"nb at fedoraproject.org" <nb at fedoraproject.org> > ? ? ? ? ?"Ruediger Landmann" <rlandman at redhat.com> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Fedora is now doing translations through transifex.net, instead of running > our own transifex instance. ?The .tx/config are what maps "resources" in > the transifex site to the pot and po's in the source repository. ?For what > it's worth, .tx/config would be needed, even if Fedora upgraded our > current transifex to 1.0 or higher. ?The only difference would be the URL > at the top of the file. (the way I understand it is Fedora provides > translations for both publican and publican-fedora, but please correct me > if that is not true.) > > We can live without having the .tx/config file stored in svn, but it'll be > harder because rudi and I (or whoever) will have to make our own copy (or > send each other a copy) before updating the pot on tx.net or pulling the > updated po's to update in svn. > > I would request you allow the .tx/config files to be stored in svn again. > > Nick > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Feb 21, 2011, at 23:41, Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> wrote: > > > I am not happy with having content for commercial enterprises in the > > Publican repository. Doing so without discussing this on the Publican > > list is unacceptable, please start a discussion now. > > > > Cheers, Jeff. > > > > On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 04:12 +0000, nb at fedoraproject.org wrote: > >> Author: nb > >> Date: 2011-02-22 04:12:36 +0000 (Tue, 22 Feb 2011) > >> New Revision: 1722 > >> > >> Added: > >> ? trunk/publican-fedora/.tx/ > >> ? trunk/publican-fedora/.tx/config > >> Log: > >> Add publican-fedora/.tx/config > >> > >> > >> Added: trunk/publican-fedora/.tx/config > >> =================================================================== > >> --- trunk/publican-fedora/.tx/config ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?(rev 0) > >> +++ trunk/publican-fedora/.tx/config ? ?2011-02-22 04:12:36 UTC (rev 1722) > >> @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ > >> +[main] > >> +host = https://www.transifex.net > >> + > >> +[publican-fedora.Feedback] > >> +file_filter = <lang>/Feedback.po > >> +source_file = pot/Feedback.pot > >> +source_lang = en > >> + > >> +[publican-fedora.Logos] > >> +file_filter = <lang>/Logos.po > >> +source_file = pot/Logos.pot > >> +source_lang = en > >> + > >> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > publican-list mailing list > publican-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/publican-list > Wiki: https://fedorahosted.org/publican _______________________________________________ publican-list mailing list publican-list at redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/publican-list Wiki: https://fedorahosted.org/publican -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/publican-list/attachments/20110222/89b4e350/attachment.htm> From nb at fedoraproject.org Tue Feb 22 22:38:13 2011 From: nb at fedoraproject.org (Nick Bebout) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 16:38:13 -0600 Subject: [publican-list] [Fwd: Re: r1722 - in trunk/publican-fedora: . .tx] In-Reply-To: <526984663.171942.1298412984919.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> References: <526984663.171942.1298412984919.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> Message-ID: <71F6E55A-6E8A-48ED-842F-AA4F3222D0E9@fedoraproject.org> Basically yes, jfearn will have to find people to translate it himself if he will not accept translations from fedora.transifex.net. I thought the original issue was just the .tx/config file, which we could work with, but if he doesn't want translations then well, I guess that's his choice. The same translators are going to be on the new site, Fedora still controls the translation teams, the translators still agree to the CLA like normal. Nick Sent from my iPhone On Feb 22, 2011, at 16:16, Deon Lackey <dlackey at redhat.com> wrote: > I'm just curious: doesn't nixing transifex.net content effectively shut down translations? Or does it simply make it more difficult on Nick and Rudi but not change the ultimate process (meaning, the translations are still done on tx.net)? > > > > I'm not familiar with the Fedora translation process. What's the end result of this? > > Deon > > > From: "Jeff Fearn" <jfearn at redhat.com> > To: "Publican discussions" <publican-list at redhat.com> > Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 3:57:16 PM > Subject: Re: [publican-list] [Fwd: Re: r1722 - in trunk/publican-fedora: . .tx] > > Just to clue people in on what has actually happened. > > Fedora infrastructure has been running an instance of Transifex for some > time. This installation has been plagued by terrible performance and an > almost complete inability to maintain or upgrade it. AIUI almost all of > these issues are related to the software itself. > > Travel forward to recent times when Fedora decided not to host an > instance anymore, because it's unmaintainable, and so decided to migrate > hosted applications without going to the rather obvious step of asking > the associated projects if it was OK to migrate them to a commercial > entities site. > > Now I for one am rather hesitant to move to a hosted commercial instance > run by people who make software that a team of people can't update or > maintain. I'm double hesitant when the whole migration process was done > without public consultation with the projects themselves. > > At this point I'm willing to wield my Project Leaders Veto on accepting > transifex.net content. Giving commercial entities rights over our name > and sources is a serious step, doing it without due consideration is > rather foolish, and doing it on other peoples behalf is morally > offensive and pretty much illegal. > > Cheers, Jeff. > > On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 06:13 -0600, Nick Bebout wrote: > > Per jfearn's request, forwarding this to publican-list. > > > > Nick > > ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- > > Subject: Re: r1722 - in trunk/publican-fedora: . .tx > > From: "Nick Bebout" <nick at bebout.net> > > Date: Tue, February 22, 2011 6:07 am > > To: "jfearn at redhat.com" <jfearn at redhat.com> > > Cc: "nb at fedoraproject.org" <nb at fedoraproject.org> > > "Ruediger Landmann" <rlandman at redhat.com> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Fedora is now doing translations through transifex.net, instead of running > > our own transifex instance. The .tx/config are what maps "resources" in > > the transifex site to the pot and po's in the source repository. For what > > it's worth, .tx/config would be needed, even if Fedora upgraded our > > current transifex to 1.0 or higher. The only difference would be the URL > > at the top of the file. (the way I understand it is Fedora provides > > translations for both publican and publican-fedora, but please correct me > > if that is not true.) > > > > We can live without having the .tx/config file stored in svn, but it'll be > > harder because rudi and I (or whoever) will have to make our own copy (or > > send each other a copy) before updating the pot on tx.net or pulling the > > updated po's to update in svn. > > > > I would request you allow the .tx/config files to be stored in svn again. > > > > Nick > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > On Feb 21, 2011, at 23:41, Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > I am not happy with having content for commercial enterprises in the > > > Publican repository. Doing so without discussing this on the Publican > > > list is unacceptable, please start a discussion now. > > > > > > Cheers, Jeff. > > > > > > On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 04:12 +0000, nb at fedoraproject.org wrote: > > >> Author: nb > > >> Date: 2011-02-22 04:12:36 +0000 (Tue, 22 Feb 2011) > > >> New Revision: 1722 > > >> > > >> Added: > > >> trunk/publican-fedora/.tx/ > > >> trunk/publican-fedora/.tx/config > > >> Log: > > >> Add publican-fedora/.tx/config > > >> > > >> > > >> Added: trunk/publican-fedora/.tx/config > > >> =================================================================== > > >> --- trunk/publican-fedora/.tx/config (rev 0) > > >> +++ trunk/publican-fedora/.tx/config 2011-02-22 04:12:36 UTC (rev 1722) > > >> @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ > > >> +[main] > > >> +host = https://www.transifex.net > > >> + > > >> +[publican-fedora.Feedback] > > >> +file_filter = <lang>/Feedback.po > > >> +source_file = pot/Feedback.pot > > >> +source_lang = en > > >> + > > >> +[publican-fedora.Logos] > > >> +file_filter = <lang>/Logos.po > > >> +source_file = pot/Logos.pot > > >> +source_lang = en > > >> + > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > publican-list mailing list > > publican-list at redhat.com > > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/publican-list > > Wiki: https://fedorahosted.org/publican > > > > _______________________________________________ > publican-list mailing list > publican-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/publican-list > Wiki: https://fedorahosted.org/publican > > _______________________________________________ > publican-list mailing list > publican-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/publican-list > Wiki: https://fedorahosted.org/publican -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/publican-list/attachments/20110222/0ac5b8d5/attachment.htm> From smooge at gmail.com Tue Feb 22 22:44:40 2011 From: smooge at gmail.com (Stephen John Smoogen) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 15:44:40 -0700 Subject: [publican-list] [Fwd: Re: r1722 - in trunk/publican-fedora: . .tx] In-Reply-To: <1298411836.25340.35.camel@cranium.bne.redhat.com> References: <4f186bf731bc9dd7b421d479831f869c.squirrel@mail.bebout.net> <1298411836.25340.35.camel@cranium.bne.redhat.com> Message-ID: <AANLkTikEjs5bQHcjz1aNXbHdbvDr-tyTfOreU=mxY69g@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 14:57, Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> wrote: > Just to clue people in on what has actually happened. > > Fedora infrastructure has been running an instance of Transifex for some > time. This installation has been plagued by terrible performance and an > almost complete inability to maintain or upgrade it. AIUI almost all of > these issues are related to the software itself. There are several issues: 1) The service that Infrastructure currently runs is 0.7 and no longer maintained. 2) Attempts have been made multiple times on upgrading it but usually we fall out of volunteer time. 3) Alternatives were looked at but again we ran out of volunteer time on this. 4) We asked the L1ON team and various members said they would be happy to move stuff up to transifex.net 5) I did not check with the other teams before we started on testing this to see who might have a problem with this. If there are legal concerns about this please bring them up with Fedora Legal. -- Stephen J Smoogen. "The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance." Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University. "Let us be kind, one to another, for most of us are fighting a hard battle." -- Ian MacLaren From jfearn at redhat.com Tue Feb 22 22:45:04 2011 From: jfearn at redhat.com (Jeff Fearn) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 08:45:04 +1000 Subject: [publican-list] [Fwd: Re: r1722 - in trunk/publican-fedora: . .tx] In-Reply-To: <526984663.171942.1298412984919.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> References: <526984663.171942.1298412984919.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1298414704.25340.44.camel@cranium.bne.redhat.com> On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 17:16 -0500, Deon Lackey wrote: > I'm just curious: doesn't nixing transifex.net content effectively > shut down translations? Or does it simply make it more difficult on > Nick and Rudi but not change the ultimate process (meaning, the > translations are still done on tx.net)? You can't use transifex.net without giving naming rights and such, so without our consent there would be no Publican files in transifex.net. In addition, even if they did host it against our will, none of it would be committed in to the Publican SVN repo. I'd move project hosting if this was not enforceable on fedora hosted. > I'm not familiar with the Fedora translation process. What's the end > result of this? It means translators would need to commit directly to the SVN repository. It is a simply matter of them applying for access via the FAS pages, there are numerous people with access to grant such access. Cheers, Jeff. > Deon > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > From: "Jeff Fearn" <jfearn at redhat.com> > To: "Publican discussions" <publican-list at redhat.com> > Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 3:57:16 PM > Subject: Re: [publican-list] [Fwd: Re: r1722 - in > trunk/publican-fedora: . .tx] > > Just to clue people in on what has actually happened. > > Fedora infrastructure has been running an instance of Transifex for > some > time. This installation has been plagued by terrible performance and > an > almost complete inability to maintain or upgrade it. AIUI almost all > of > these issues are related to the software itself. > > Travel forward to recent times when Fedora decided not to host an > instance anymore, because it's unmaintainable, and so decided to > migrate > hosted applications without going to the rather obvious step of asking > the associated projects if it was OK to migrate them to a commercial > entities site. > > Now I for one am rather hesitant to move to a hosted commercial > instance > run by people who make software that a team of people can't update or > maintain. I'm double hesitant when the whole migration process was > done > without public consultation with the projects themselves. > > At this point I'm willing to wield my Project Leaders Veto on > accepting > transifex.net content. Giving commercial entities rights over our name > and sources is a serious step, doing it without due consideration is > rather foolish, and doing it on other peoples behalf is morally > offensive and pretty much illegal. > > Cheers, Jeff. > > On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 06:13 -0600, Nick Bebout wrote: > > Per jfearn's request, forwarding this to publican-list. > > > > Nick > > ---------------------------- Original Message > ---------------------------- > > Subject: Re: r1722 - in trunk/publican-fedora: . .tx > > From: "Nick Bebout" <nick at bebout.net> > > Date: Tue, February 22, 2011 6:07 am > > To: "jfearn at redhat.com" <jfearn at redhat.com> > > Cc: "nb at fedoraproject.org" <nb at fedoraproject.org> > > "Ruediger Landmann" <rlandman at redhat.com> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Fedora is now doing translations through transifex.net, instead of > running > > our own transifex instance. The .tx/config are what maps > "resources" in > > the transifex site to the pot and po's in the source repository. > For what > > it's worth, .tx/config would be needed, even if Fedora upgraded our > > current transifex to 1.0 or higher. The only difference would be > the URL > > at the top of the file. (the way I understand it is Fedora provides > > translations for both publican and publican-fedora, but please > correct me > > if that is not true.) > > > > We can live without having the .tx/config file stored in svn, but > it'll be > > harder because rudi and I (or whoever) will have to make our own > copy (or > > send each other a copy) before updating the pot on tx.net or pulling > the > > updated po's to update in svn. > > > > I would request you allow the .tx/config files to be stored in svn > again. > > > > Nick > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > On Feb 21, 2011, at 23:41, Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > I am not happy with having content for commercial enterprises in > the > > > Publican repository. Doing so without discussing this on the > Publican > > > list is unacceptable, please start a discussion now. > > > > > > Cheers, Jeff. > > > > > > On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 04:12 +0000, nb at fedoraproject.org wrote: > > >> Author: nb > > >> Date: 2011-02-22 04:12:36 +0000 (Tue, 22 Feb 2011) > > >> New Revision: 1722 > > >> > > >> Added: > > >> trunk/publican-fedora/.tx/ > > >> trunk/publican-fedora/.tx/config > > >> Log: > > >> Add publican-fedora/.tx/config > > >> > > >> > > >> Added: trunk/publican-fedora/.tx/config > > >> > =================================================================== > > >> --- trunk/publican-fedora/.tx/config > (rev 0) > > >> +++ trunk/publican-fedora/.tx/config 2011-02-22 04:12:36 UTC > (rev 1722) > > >> @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ > > >> +[main] > > >> +host = https://www.transifex.net > > >> + > > >> +[publican-fedora.Feedback] > > >> +file_filter = <lang>/Feedback.po > > >> +source_file = pot/Feedback.pot > > >> +source_lang = en > > >> + > > >> +[publican-fedora.Logos] > > >> +file_filter = <lang>/Logos.po > > >> +source_file = pot/Logos.pot > > >> +source_lang = en > > >> + > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > publican-list mailing list > > publican-list at redhat.com > > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/publican-list > > Wiki: https://fedorahosted.org/publican > > > > _______________________________________________ > publican-list mailing list > publican-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/publican-list > Wiki: https://fedorahosted.org/publican > > > From jfearn at redhat.com Tue Feb 22 22:58:35 2011 From: jfearn at redhat.com (Jeff Fearn) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 08:58:35 +1000 Subject: [publican-list] [Fwd: Re: r1722 - in trunk/publican-fedora: . .tx] In-Reply-To: <71F6E55A-6E8A-48ED-842F-AA4F3222D0E9@fedoraproject.org> References: <526984663.171942.1298412984919.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> <71F6E55A-6E8A-48ED-842F-AA4F3222D0E9@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1298415515.25340.47.camel@cranium.bne.redhat.com> On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 16:38 -0600, Nick Bebout wrote: > Basically yes, jfearn will have to find people to translate it himself > if he will not accept translations from fedora.transifex.net. I > thought the original issue was just the .tx/config file, which we > could work with, but if he doesn't want translations then well, I > guess that's his choice. I'm pretty sure I can cover 20 languages. > > The same translators are going to be on the new site, Fedora still > controls the translation teams, the translators still agree to the CLA > like normal. It's not the translates that are at issue, it's the commercial relationship between Publican and transifex.net, include the rights to using Publicans name and sources to advertise that site. Cheers, Jeff. From jfearn at redhat.com Tue Feb 22 23:00:31 2011 From: jfearn at redhat.com (Jeff Fearn) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 09:00:31 +1000 Subject: [publican-list] [Fwd: Re: r1722 - in trunk/publican-fedora: . .tx] In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikEjs5bQHcjz1aNXbHdbvDr-tyTfOreU=mxY69g@mail.gmail.com> References: <4f186bf731bc9dd7b421d479831f869c.squirrel@mail.bebout.net> <1298411836.25340.35.camel@cranium.bne.redhat.com> <AANLkTikEjs5bQHcjz1aNXbHdbvDr-tyTfOreU=mxY69g@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1298415631.25340.49.camel@cranium.bne.redhat.com> On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 15:44 -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 14:57, Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> wrote: > > Just to clue people in on what has actually happened. > > > > Fedora infrastructure has been running an instance of Transifex for some > > time. This installation has been plagued by terrible performance and an > > almost complete inability to maintain or upgrade it. AIUI almost all of > > these issues are related to the software itself. > > There are several issues: > > 1) The service that Infrastructure currently runs is 0.7 and no longer > maintained. > 2) Attempts have been made multiple times on upgrading it but usually > we fall out of volunteer time. > 3) Alternatives were looked at but again we ran out of volunteer time on this. > 4) We asked the L1ON team and various members said they would be happy > to move stuff up to transifex.net > 5) I did not check with the other teams before we started on testing > this to see who might have a problem with this. > > If there are legal concerns about this please bring them up with Fedora Legal. Publican is not a Fedora project and Fedora Legal does not represents Publican or advocate for it. It most certainly has no stake in any commercial relationships Publican enters in to. Cheers, Jeff. From smooge at gmail.com Tue Feb 22 23:11:21 2011 From: smooge at gmail.com (Stephen John Smoogen) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 16:11:21 -0700 Subject: [publican-list] [Fwd: Re: r1722 - in trunk/publican-fedora: . .tx] In-Reply-To: <1298415631.25340.49.camel@cranium.bne.redhat.com> References: <4f186bf731bc9dd7b421d479831f869c.squirrel@mail.bebout.net> <1298411836.25340.35.camel@cranium.bne.redhat.com> <AANLkTikEjs5bQHcjz1aNXbHdbvDr-tyTfOreU=mxY69g@mail.gmail.com> <1298415631.25340.49.camel@cranium.bne.redhat.com> Message-ID: <AANLkTimxC3WZ6QJetAURTJK9HOh-0NQv2g9OoBtoCyBy@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 16:00, Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> wrote: >> If there are legal concerns about this please bring them up with Fedora Legal. > > Publican is not a Fedora project and Fedora Legal does not represents > Publican or advocate for it. It most certainly has no stake in any > commercial relationships Publican enters in to. I guess we will go to the next level. If you have a problem, then please have Red Hat legal contact Fedora legal. I hear they work really near each other. -- Stephen J Smoogen. "The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance." Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University. "Let us be kind, one to another, for most of us are fighting a hard battle." -- Ian MacLaren From jfearn at redhat.com Tue Feb 22 23:21:50 2011 From: jfearn at redhat.com (Jeff Fearn) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 09:21:50 +1000 Subject: [publican-list] [Fwd: Re: r1722 - in trunk/publican-fedora: . .tx] In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimxC3WZ6QJetAURTJK9HOh-0NQv2g9OoBtoCyBy@mail.gmail.com> References: <4f186bf731bc9dd7b421d479831f869c.squirrel@mail.bebout.net> <1298411836.25340.35.camel@cranium.bne.redhat.com> <AANLkTikEjs5bQHcjz1aNXbHdbvDr-tyTfOreU=mxY69g@mail.gmail.com> <1298415631.25340.49.camel@cranium.bne.redhat.com> <AANLkTimxC3WZ6QJetAURTJK9HOh-0NQv2g9OoBtoCyBy@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1298416910.25340.53.camel@cranium.bne.redhat.com> On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 16:11 -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 16:00, Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> wrote: > > >> If there are legal concerns about this please bring them up with Fedora Legal. > > > > Publican is not a Fedora project and Fedora Legal does not represents > > Publican or advocate for it. It most certainly has no stake in any > > commercial relationships Publican enters in to. > > I guess we will go to the next level. > > If you have a problem, then please have Red Hat legal contact Fedora > legal. I hear they work really near each other. Regardless of what legal advice we get or who we get it from, it is completely inappropriate for Fedora to make those decisions or create those commercial relationships. Cheers, Jeff. From nb at fedoraproject.org Tue Feb 22 23:29:59 2011 From: nb at fedoraproject.org (Nick Bebout) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 17:29:59 -0600 Subject: [publican-list] [Fwd: Re: r1722 - in trunk/publican-fedora: . .tx] In-Reply-To: <1298416910.25340.53.camel@cranium.bne.redhat.com> References: <4f186bf731bc9dd7b421d479831f869c.squirrel@mail.bebout.net> <1298411836.25340.35.camel@cranium.bne.redhat.com> <AANLkTikEjs5bQHcjz1aNXbHdbvDr-tyTfOreU=mxY69g@mail.gmail.com> <1298415631.25340.49.camel@cranium.bne.redhat.com> <AANLkTimxC3WZ6QJetAURTJK9HOh-0NQv2g9OoBtoCyBy@mail.gmail.com> <1298416910.25340.53.camel@cranium.bne.redhat.com> Message-ID: <2b5bf89c6da80fe71b62e428f89b7350.squirrel@mail.bebout.net> Please inform me what part of http://www.transifex.net/about/terms/ grants them any more rights than the normal publican license at http://svn.fedorahosted.org/svn/publican/trunk/publican/LICENSE does. "By submitting public (non-private) Content to Indifex for inclusion on your Website, you grant Indifex a world-wide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, modify, adapt and publish the Content solely for the purpose of displaying and promoting your account or project." I believe that per the publican license those rights are granted to everyone by the GPLv2+ which publican is licensed under. Also, what prevents someone from creating a separate repo to use for keeping the fedora.transifex.net translations in? Nick > On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 16:11 -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 16:00, Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> wrote: >> >> >> If there are legal concerns about this please bring them up with >> Fedora Legal. >> > >> > Publican is not a Fedora project and Fedora Legal does not represents >> > Publican or advocate for it. It most certainly has no stake in any >> > commercial relationships Publican enters in to. >> >> I guess we will go to the next level. >> >> If you have a problem, then please have Red Hat legal contact Fedora >> legal. I hear they work really near each other. > > Regardless of what legal advice we get or who we get it from, it is > completely inappropriate for Fedora to make those decisions or create > those commercial relationships. > > Cheers, Jeff. > > _______________________________________________ > publican-list mailing list > publican-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/publican-list > Wiki: https://fedorahosted.org/publican > From jfearn at redhat.com Tue Feb 22 23:48:10 2011 From: jfearn at redhat.com (Jeff Fearn) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 09:48:10 +1000 Subject: [publican-list] [Fwd: Re: r1722 - in trunk/publican-fedora: . .tx] In-Reply-To: <1cf59378bef1faec3215b959408bc56b.squirrel@mail.bebout.net> References: <4f186bf731bc9dd7b421d479831f869c.squirrel@mail.bebout.net> <1298411836.25340.35.camel@cranium.bne.redhat.com> <AANLkTikEjs5bQHcjz1aNXbHdbvDr-tyTfOreU=mxY69g@mail.gmail.com> <1298415631.25340.49.camel@cranium.bne.redhat.com> <AANLkTimxC3WZ6QJetAURTJK9HOh-0NQv2g9OoBtoCyBy@mail.gmail.com> <1298416910.25340.53.camel@cranium.bne.redhat.com> <1cf59378bef1faec3215b959408bc56b.squirrel@mail.bebout.net> Message-ID: <1298418490.25340.65.camel@cranium.bne.redhat.com> On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 17:29 -0600, Nick Bebout wrote: > Please inform me what part of http://www.transifex.net/about/terms/ grants > them any more rights than the normal publican license at > http://svn.fedorahosted.org/svn/publican/trunk/publican/LICENSE does. Commercial relationships require vetting by lawyers. I'm not a lawyer. you are not Publicans lawyer. I'm not discussing it other than to say no one is entitled to enter such relationships on Publican behalf. > "By submitting public (non-private) Content to Indifex for inclusion on > your Website, you grant Indifex a world-wide, royalty-free, and > non-exclusive license to reproduce, modify, adapt and publish the Content > solely for the purpose of displaying and promoting your account or > project." > > I believe that per the publican license those rights are granted to > everyone by the GPLv2+ which publican is licensed under. Your legal opinion is of no use to us. > Also, what prevents someone from creating a separate repo to use for > keeping the fedora.transifex.net translations in? Feel free to fork or carry patches, but don't grant commercial rights for Publican. Cheers, Jeff. From jaredsmith at jaredsmith.net Wed Feb 23 01:33:13 2011 From: jaredsmith at jaredsmith.net (Jared Smith) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 20:33:13 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Fwd: Re: r1722 - in trunk/publican-fedora: . .tx] In-Reply-To: <1298411836.25340.35.camel@cranium.bne.redhat.com> References: <4f186bf731bc9dd7b421d479831f869c.squirrel@mail.bebout.net> <1298411836.25340.35.camel@cranium.bne.redhat.com> Message-ID: <AANLkTinwEaSH-Aax3ABQ3nhwhOdU09jdW9xX1y9PgOWr@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> wrote: > Fedora infrastructure has been running an instance of Transifex for some > time. This installation has been plagued by terrible performance and an > almost complete inability to maintain or upgrade it. AIUI almost all of > these issues are related to the software itself. Yes, Fedora has run a Transifex instance for a while. There have been performance issues, and the Fedora infrastructure team has been short on manpower to maintain and upgrade it. (And yes -- we've still got an open position or two on the Infrastructure team -- we're working to address that as well.) At this point in time, the Fedora instance of Transifex is a fairly old version (0.7, if my memory serves me) and it woefully out of date from the current version (1.0 is the latest release branch, and 1.1-dev is being used by a number of projects.) There's been quite a lot of change to the software between those versions, and much of that change was driven by the need for better performance for high-volume instances and easier upgrades in the future. I'm sure our Infrastructure team would be more than happy to go into the exact details, but I didn't get the feeling that the difficulty in maintaining and upgrading Transifex was necessarily only because of the software itself -- at least part of the difficulty was lack of understanding of the tools (web frameworks, libraries, database schemas) on the Fedora side, and that was compounded by an overworked (and may I add under-appreciated) Infrastructure team. > Travel forward to recent times when Fedora decided not to host an > instance anymore, because it's unmaintainable, and so decided to migrate > hosted applications without going to the rather obvious step of asking > the associated projects if it was OK to migrate them to a commercial > entities site. I'll be honest -- the decision to move to Transifex.net happened pretty fast. In fact, I'd have preferred to wait until after the F15 release to make changes to our translation infrastructure. I discussed this with the Fedora L10N team last week, and they convinced me that they'd rather see the change happen now rather than waiting until after the F15 release. I called a series of meetings with representatives from the L10N team, the infrastructure team, the docs team, FESCo, the Fedora Program Manager, and myself. We carefully weighed the pros and cons of moving to Transifex.net, and debated whether or not to do it quickly, since we were already past the string freeze for F15. In the end, everyone agreed that it made sense to move to Transifex.net as quickly as possible, as long as we had an exit strategy should things not work according to plan. Since then, we've migrated the data from our hosted instance to Transifex.net, and begun the process of packaging the client-side tools for Fedora packagers and developers. After the Fedora 15 release, I'm more than happy to revisit the topic of Fedora translation infrastructure, and decide from there whether to stay on Transifex.net, move back to our own internally hosted instance, or move to some other piece of software. In the short term, however, our translators need something that works better than our current solution and they need it now. I'm sorry that I couldn't consult with every single person that uses our translation system. I did try to make sure we announced it to the L10N and Docs teams as early and loudly as possible, and I'll continue to make additional announcements over the next few days. > Now I for one am rather hesitant to move to a hosted commercial instance > run by people who make software that a team of people can't update or > maintain. Ordinarily I'd be weary of moving to a commercial hosted solution as well, but in this particular instance, I trust Dimitris (and, by extension, Indifex) because I've seen the work they've done, how they've treated the open source community, and how Dimitris handled himself when he was on the Fedora Board. No piece of software is perfect (at least, not any that I've ever found), but the Transifex team really is doing their best not only to make Transifex better, but to address the concerns of Fedora. Now, to be a bit pragmatic, any time you move from something you control to something that someone else manages, you need to evaluate the risks. In this particular instance, we felt that the risks were fairly low, as Indifex has promised us that they'll give us all our translation date should we move off their hosted platform. And since the version they run in their hosted instance is the very same open source version that we could deploy on our own (again, assuming we had the manpower and familiarity with the software to do so). > I'm double hesitant when the whole migration process was done > without public consultation with the projects themselves. There was plenty of public consultation with the Fedora teams (L10N, Docs, FESCo, Infra, Board). Like I said above, I'm sorry that I wasn't able to consult with every single project that uses Fedora infrastructure. The time constraints (considering that we were already at the string freeze, and any delay would have cut > At this point I'm willing to wield my Project Leaders Veto on accepting > transifex.net content. Giving commercial entities rights over our name > and sources is a serious step, doing it without due consideration is > rather foolish, and doing it on other peoples behalf is morally > offensive and pretty much illegal. That's certainly your prerogative as a project leader. However, I'm slightly confused by this paragraph -- would you mind giving me some clarification? I don't know what you mean by "rights over our name and sources". We're not giving Transifex any additional rights over the Fedora trademark or over the translated strings -- the strings are still licensed the exact same way as before. As to the legality of moving to a hosted solution, I did make sure that Fedora Legal was involved and got sign-off from them before moving ahead with our migration. If you feel that something we've done is somehow illegal, please bring it to the attention of Fedora Legal or the Red Hat legal department so that they're aware of your concerns. -- Jared Smith Fedora Project Leader From jaredsmith at jaredsmith.net Wed Feb 23 01:35:27 2011 From: jaredsmith at jaredsmith.net (Jared Smith) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 20:35:27 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Fwd: Re: r1722 - in trunk/publican-fedora: . .tx] In-Reply-To: <1298414704.25340.44.camel@cranium.bne.redhat.com> References: <526984663.171942.1298412984919.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> <1298414704.25340.44.camel@cranium.bne.redhat.com> Message-ID: <AANLkTimuRcH5RPeQ59_hmXa-4Mh+gyQms+JYvXUnFFxd@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> wrote: > In addition, even if they did host it against our will, none of it would > be committed in to the Publican SVN repo. I'd move project hosting if > this was not enforceable on fedora hosted. On a technical note, Transifex no longer pushes translations into revision control, so it's completely up to developers/packagers to decide whether or not (or when) to pull translated strings into their software. Just one of the many changes between 0.7 and 1.0. -- Jared Smith Fedora Project Leader From jfearn at redhat.com Wed Feb 23 02:32:29 2011 From: jfearn at redhat.com (Jeff Fearn) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 12:32:29 +1000 Subject: [publican-list] [Fwd: Re: r1722 - in trunk/publican-fedora: . .tx] In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinwEaSH-Aax3ABQ3nhwhOdU09jdW9xX1y9PgOWr@mail.gmail.com> References: <4f186bf731bc9dd7b421d479831f869c.squirrel@mail.bebout.net> <1298411836.25340.35.camel@cranium.bne.redhat.com> <AANLkTinwEaSH-Aax3ABQ3nhwhOdU09jdW9xX1y9PgOWr@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1298428349.25340.74.camel@cranium.bne.redhat.com> On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 20:33 -0500, Jared Smith wrote: > > I'm double hesitant when the whole migration process was done > > without public consultation with the projects themselves. > > There was plenty of public consultation with the Fedora teams (L10N, > Docs, FESCo, Infra, Board). Like I said above, I'm sorry that I > wasn't able to consult with every single project that uses Fedora > infrastructure. The time constraints (considering that we were > already at the string freeze, and any delay would have cut You aren't entitled in anyway to make such decisions for non fedora projects, even if they are using some Fedora infrastructure. > > At this point I'm willing to wield my Project Leaders Veto on accepting > > transifex.net content. Giving commercial entities rights over our name > > and sources is a serious step, doing it without due consideration is > > rather foolish, and doing it on other peoples behalf is morally > > offensive and pretty much illegal. > > That's certainly your prerogative as a project leader. However, I'm > slightly confused by this paragraph -- would you mind giving me some > clarification? I don't know what you mean by "rights over our name > and sources". We're not giving Transifex any additional rights over > the Fedora trademark or over the translated strings -- the strings are > still licensed the exact same way as before. The TOS clearly contains some legal rights over the usage of names and sources. It doesn't matter what those rights are, the Fedora projects has questionable legal right, and absolutely no moral right, to make that choice for non Fedora projets. It's reprehensible that Fedora would make ANY such decision on the behalf of non-Fedora projects. > As to the legality of moving to a hosted solution, I did make sure > that Fedora Legal was involved and got sign-off from them before > moving ahead with our migration. If you feel that something we've > done is somehow illegal, please bring it to the attention of Fedora > Legal or the Red Hat legal department so that they're aware of your > concerns. Making the change for Fedora is fine. Telling people they either move or find another way is fine. Moving non-Fedora projects without getting explicit permission to do so is decidedly off color. Cheers, Jeff. From jfearn at redhat.com Wed Feb 23 02:39:01 2011 From: jfearn at redhat.com (Jeff Fearn) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 12:39:01 +1000 Subject: [publican-list] [Fwd: Re: r1722 - in trunk/publican-fedora: . .tx] In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimuRcH5RPeQ59_hmXa-4Mh+gyQms+JYvXUnFFxd@mail.gmail.com> References: <526984663.171942.1298412984919.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> <1298414704.25340.44.camel@cranium.bne.redhat.com> <AANLkTimuRcH5RPeQ59_hmXa-4Mh+gyQms+JYvXUnFFxd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1298428741.25340.80.camel@cranium.bne.redhat.com> On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 20:35 -0500, Jared Smith wrote: > On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> wrote: > > In addition, even if they did host it against our will, none of it would > > be committed in to the Publican SVN repo. I'd move project hosting if > > this was not enforceable on fedora hosted. > > On a technical note, Transifex no longer pushes translations into > revision control, so it's completely up to developers/packagers to > decide whether or not (or when) to pull translated strings into their > software. Just one of the many changes between 0.7 and 1.0. No, but it poorly enough designed that it needs configuration files in repos it only pulls from. At this point we most certainly will not be accepting content from transifex.net, nor will we be using or recommending their service; and we will take great umbrage should they use our name or content to advertising their service. Cheers, Jeff. From dlackey at redhat.com Wed Feb 23 14:28:55 2011 From: dlackey at redhat.com (Deon Lackey) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 09:28:55 -0500 (EST) Subject: [publican-list] [Fwd: Re: r1722 - in trunk/publican-fedora: . .tx] In-Reply-To: <1298428741.25340.80.camel@cranium.bne.redhat.com> Message-ID: <628335957.182018.1298471335706.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> But this circles back to my original question: does that mean no more translation for publican? And does that have any effect on translation for Fedora? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Fearn" <jfearn at redhat.com> To: "Jared Smith" <jaredsmith at jaredsmith.net> Cc: "Publican discussions" <publican-list at redhat.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 8:39:01 PM Subject: Re: [publican-list] [Fwd: Re: r1722 - in trunk/publican-fedora: . .tx] On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 20:35 -0500, Jared Smith wrote: > On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> wrote: > > In addition, even if they did host it against our will, none of it would > > be committed in to the Publican SVN repo. I'd move project hosting if > > this was not enforceable on fedora hosted. > > On a technical note, Transifex no longer pushes translations into > revision control, so it's completely up to developers/packagers to > decide whether or not (or when) to pull translated strings into their > software. ?Just one of the many changes between 0.7 and 1.0. No, but it poorly enough designed that it needs configuration files in repos it only pulls from. At this point we most certainly will not be accepting content from transifex.net, nor will we be using or recommending their service; and we will take great umbrage should they use our name or content to advertising their service. Cheers, Jeff. _______________________________________________ publican-list mailing list publican-list at redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/publican-list Wiki: https://fedorahosted.org/publican -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/publican-list/attachments/20110223/81868727/attachment.htm> From glezos at indifex.com Wed Feb 23 17:30:50 2011 From: glezos at indifex.com (Dimitris Glezos) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 19:30:50 +0200 Subject: [publican-list] [Fwd: Re: r1722 - in trunk/publican-fedora: . .tx] In-Reply-To: <628335957.182018.1298471335706.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> References: <1298428741.25340.80.camel@cranium.bne.redhat.com> <628335957.182018.1298471335706.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> Message-ID: <AANLkTi=6vRGHJh==LJVWkJJ+ApNEGs0Wb69eBS2T2_Ns@mail.gmail.com> Publican and publican-fedora have been removed from Transifex.net. Sending a simple email requesting this would suffice. Also please note that Transifex doesn't require configuration files in repos as stated. -d -- Dimitris Glezos Transifex: The Multilingual Publishing Revolution http://www.transifex.net/ -- http://www.indifex.com/ From jfearn at redhat.com Wed Feb 23 21:15:54 2011 From: jfearn at redhat.com (Jeff Fearn) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 07:15:54 +1000 Subject: [publican-list] [Fwd: Re: r1722 - in trunk/publican-fedora: . .tx] In-Reply-To: <628335957.182018.1298471335706.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> References: <628335957.182018.1298471335706.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1298495754.22619.3.camel@cranium.bne.redhat.com> On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 09:28 -0500, Deon Lackey wrote: > But this circles back to my original question: does that mean no more > translation for publican? And does that have any effect on translation > for Fedora? For Publican it may reduce the number of languages being translated, or how often those languages are updated. Obviously since Red Hat uses publican and Red Hat has it's own translation team, that set of languages is highly likely to be maintained. I'd imagine the effect of publican not using transifex.net will have negligible effect on Fedora translation. Cheers, Jeff. From jfearn at redhat.com Wed Feb 23 21:18:34 2011 From: jfearn at redhat.com (Jeff Fearn) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 07:18:34 +1000 Subject: [publican-list] [Fwd: Re: r1722 - in trunk/publican-fedora: . .tx] In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=6vRGHJh==LJVWkJJ+ApNEGs0Wb69eBS2T2_Ns@mail.gmail.com> References: <1298428741.25340.80.camel@cranium.bne.redhat.com> <628335957.182018.1298471335706.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> <AANLkTi=6vRGHJh==LJVWkJJ+ApNEGs0Wb69eBS2T2_Ns@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1298495914.22619.6.camel@cranium.bne.redhat.com> On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 19:30 +0200, Dimitris Glezos wrote: > Publican and publican-fedora have been removed from Transifex.net. Thank you. > Sending a simple email requesting this would suffice. I'd have thought the people responsible for it would have done so. > Also please note that Transifex doesn't require configuration files in > repos as stated. I thought requiring client side configuration for a purely server side application was odd. Good to hear those people were wrong. Cheers, Jeff. From r.landmann at redhat.com Wed Feb 23 22:33:26 2011 From: r.landmann at redhat.com (Ruediger Landmann) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 08:33:26 +1000 Subject: [publican-list] [Fwd: Re: r1722 - in trunk/publican-fedora: . .tx] In-Reply-To: <1298495914.22619.6.camel@cranium.bne.redhat.com> References: <1298428741.25340.80.camel@cranium.bne.redhat.com> <628335957.182018.1298471335706.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> <AANLkTi=6vRGHJh==LJVWkJJ+ApNEGs0Wb69eBS2T2_Ns@mail.gmail.com> <1298495914.22619.6.camel@cranium.bne.redhat.com> Message-ID: <4D658B36.3090601@redhat.com> On 02/24/2011 07:18 AM, Jeff Fearn wrote: > On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 19:30 +0200, Dimitris Glezos wrote: >> Publican and publican-fedora have been removed from Transifex.net. > Thank you. > >> Sending a simple email requesting this would suffice. > I'd have thought the people responsible for it would have done so. Credit where it's due -- in fact, Nick did exactly that as soon as you made your objections known. Cheers Rudi From jfearn at redhat.com Wed Feb 23 22:38:42 2011 From: jfearn at redhat.com (Jeff Fearn) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 08:38:42 +1000 Subject: [publican-list] [Fwd: Re: r1722 - in trunk/publican-fedora: . .tx] In-Reply-To: <4D658B36.3090601@redhat.com> References: <1298428741.25340.80.camel@cranium.bne.redhat.com> <628335957.182018.1298471335706.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> <AANLkTi=6vRGHJh==LJVWkJJ+ApNEGs0Wb69eBS2T2_Ns@mail.gmail.com> <1298495914.22619.6.camel@cranium.bne.redhat.com> <4D658B36.3090601@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1298500722.22619.31.camel@cranium.bne.redhat.com> On Thu, 2011-02-24 at 08:33 +1000, Ruediger Landmann wrote: > On 02/24/2011 07:18 AM, Jeff Fearn wrote: > > On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 19:30 +0200, Dimitris Glezos wrote: > >> Publican and publican-fedora have been removed from Transifex.net. > > Thank you. > > > >> Sending a simple email requesting this would suffice. > > I'd have thought the people responsible for it would have done so. > > Credit where it's due -- in fact, Nick did exactly that as soon as you > made your objections known. My apologies to Nick, good stuff. Cheers, Jeff. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 23 23:17:35 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 18:17:35 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 679955] — entity in adminitions displayed in locally built guides but not staged copies. In-Reply-To: <bug-679955-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> References: <bug-679955-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> Message-ID: <201102232317.p1NNHZDW025533@bzweb02.app.bz.hst.phx2.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=679955 --- Comment #2 from Stephen Gordon <sgordon at redhat.com> 2011-02-23 18:17:34 EST --- Created attachment 480600 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=480600 Local output. -- 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 Feb 23 23:16:46 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 18:16:46 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 679955] — entity in adminitions displayed in locally built guides but not staged copies. In-Reply-To: <bug-679955-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> References: <bug-679955-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> Message-ID: <201102232316.p1NNGkI8025388@bzweb02.app.bz.hst.phx2.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=679955 --- Comment #1 from Stephen Gordon <sgordon at redhat.com> 2011-02-23 18:16:46 EST --- Created attachment 480599 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=480599 Remote output. -- 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 Feb 23 23:16:16 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 18:16:16 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 679955] New: — entity in adminitions displayed in locally built guides but not staged copies. Message-ID: <bug-679955-264938@bugzilla.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: — entity in adminitions displayed in locally built guides but not staged copies. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=679955 Summary: — entity in adminitions displayed in locally built guides but not staged copies. Product: Publican Version: future Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: publican AssignedTo: jfearn at redhat.com ReportedBy: sgordon at redhat.com QAContact: rlandman at redhat.com CC: mmcallis at redhat.com, publican-list at redhat.com Classification: Other Description of problem: I have a number of admonitions in a guide with titles that contain the — entity: <title>Note — Bundled JBoss Enterprise Application Platform restrictions When I build locally these are displayed correctly in both html and pdf output formats. When run through publican brew however I found that in the resultant package both the pdf and html output is missing the dash. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 2.5.0 How reproducible: Very Steps to Reproduce: 1. Create a chapter in the guide with doctype tags as follows: %BOOK_ENTITIES; ]> 2. Add an admonition to the chapter that has a title which contains an — entity. 3. Build locally, observe that the output contains the dash. 4. Build remotely (brew), observe that the output does not contain the dash. Actual results: Brewed copy does not contain the — at all. Expected results: Admonition titles with — entity. Additional info: Rudi has informed me that I can just replace the docbook entity with the appropriate unicode character but I thought I would report anyway as this *should* work. I am attaching screenshots of the local and remote build results so that you can see what I mean. -- 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 Feb 25 06:03:37 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 01:03:37 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 662584] RedHat brand restricts images to 444px In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201102250603.p1P63but022629@bzweb01.app.bz.hst.phx2.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=662584 David Jorm changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |VERIFIED --- Comment #2 from David Jorm 2011-02-25 01:03:37 EST --- Working for me, locally and on doc stage -- 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 Feb 25 21:59:31 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 16:59:31 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 662584] RedHat brand restricts images to 444px In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201102252159.p1PLxVYc025740@bzweb01.app.bz.hst.phx2.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=662584 Ruediger Landmann changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|VERIFIED |CLOSED Resolution| |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed| |2011-02-25 16:59:30 -- 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 Sat Feb 26 08:24:23 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 03:24:23 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 678186] update_po produces inconsistent results In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201102260824.p1Q8ONvQ026751@bzweb01.app.bz.hst.phx2.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=678186 --- Comment #3 from Jeff Fearn 2011-02-26 03:24:22 EST --- Merging POT and PO files is currently done by msgmerge from gettext, it might be worth testing various options to msgmerge to see if the behaviour can be changed. Current options would look like: msgmerge --no-wrap --quiet --backup=none --update foo.po Try it without --update, also trying the new code path in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=661569 would be worth a shot. -- 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 Feb 28 22:25:33 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:25:33 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 679955] — entity in admonitions displayed in locally built guides but not staged copies. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201102282225.p1SMPXNO005253@bzweb02.app.bz.hst.phx2.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=679955 Stephen Gordon changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|— entity in |— entity in |adominitions displayed in |admonitions displayed in |locally built guides but |locally built guides but |not staged copies. |not staged copies. -- 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 Feb 28 22:25:12 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:25:12 -0500 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 679955] — entity in adominitions displayed in locally built guides but not staged copies. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201102282225.p1SMPCXh002375@bzweb01.app.bz.hst.phx2.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=679955 Stephen Gordon changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|— entity in |— entity in |adminitions displayed in |adominitions displayed in |locally built guides but |locally built guides but |not staged copies. |not staged copies. -- 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.