From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Jun 1 13:01:13 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 09:01:13 -0400 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 709708] New: Entities remain unresolved Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Entities remain unresolved https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709708 Summary: Entities remain unresolved Product: Publican Version: 2.3 Platform: x86_64 OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Component: publican AssignedTo: jfearn at redhat.com ReportedBy: henning at henning-kockerbeck.de QAContact: rlandman at redhat.com CC: mmcallis at redhat.com, publican-list at redhat.com Classification: Other Story Points: --- Description of problem: When I build a document with Publican, entities like – or &YEAR; appear literally in the final output instead of being resolved. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): I'm using the package Publican 2.3-2 as it is delivered with Ubuntu 11.04, 64 Bit. How reproducible: Problem appears every time Steps to Reproduce: 1. Create a new Publican document: publican create --name testdoc 2. Add an entity known to testdoc.ent, say &YEAR;, somewhere in the document, say in Chapter.xml 3. Build it: cd testdoc; publican build --formats pdf,html --langs en-US Actual results: Legal notices in the final PDF as well as HTML output say "Copyright ? &YEAR; &HOLDER; This material may only..." The entity added in step 2 remains unresolved as well. Expected results: Enties are expected to be resolved in the final output. Additional info: The problem seems to appear in all output formats. I tested PDF, HTML, single HTML and TXT. There's no difference whether the entity appears directly in testdoc.xml or in an included xml file. Thanks for any hints. -- 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 Jun 2 00:19:57 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 20:19:57 -0400 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 708259] RFE: Support per-book additions to the legal notice In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201106020019.p520Jvbp026425@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=708259 Ruediger Landmann changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pchestek 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 Jun 2 21:54:08 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 17:54:08 -0400 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 709708] Entities remain unresolved In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201106022154.p52Ls8ge018039@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=709708 --- Comment #1 from Jeff Fearn 2011-06-02 17:54:07 EDT --- Hi Henning, it sounds like a perl module issue, can you paste the output of this command: perl -MHTML::Tree -MXML::TreeBuilder -e 'print "HTML::Tree: $HTML::Tree::VERSION\nXML::TreeBuilder: $XML::TreeBuilder::VERSION\n"' -- 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 Jun 2 22:20:46 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 18:20:46 -0400 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 709708] Entities remain unresolved In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201106022220.p52MKkR8023923@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=709708 --- Comment #2 from Henning Kockerbeck 2011-06-02 18:20:45 EDT --- Hi Jeff, thanks for your answer. According to the command you supplied, both perl modules are there in the following versions HTML::Tree: 4.1 XML::TreeBuilder: 3.09 -- 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 Jun 2 23:30:28 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 19:30:28 -0400 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 710304] New: ing to Appendix does not create a link in html-single Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: ing to Appendix does not create a link in html-single https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710304 Summary: ing to Appendix does not create a link in html-single Product: Publican Version: future Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: publican AssignedTo: jfearn at redhat.com ReportedBy: rnewton at redhat.com QAContact: rlandman at redhat.com CC: mmcallis at redhat.com, publican-list at redhat.com Classification: Other Story Points: --- Description of problem: An link to the Appendix looks like a link, sounds like a link, but isn't a link. Clicking on the link has no effect but only when viewing in html-single. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: Create an link to an Appendix in a book, and build with html-single. Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: A fake link is created that cannot be clicked. Expected results: A real link is created that can be clicked, and moves the reader to the Appendix. 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 Jun 2 23:52:56 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 19:52:56 -0400 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 709708] Entities remain unresolved In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201106022352.p52NquLp010428@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=709708 --- Comment #3 from Jeff Fearn 2011-06-02 19:52:55 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > Hi Jeff, > > thanks for your answer. According to the command you supplied, both perl > modules are there in the following versions The problem is probably HTML::Tree 4, which contains significant changes. Upgrading XML::TreeBuilder to >= 4 may solve the problem, as may down grading HTML::Tree < 4. > HTML::Tree: 4.1 > XML::TreeBuilder: 3.09 -- 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 Jun 3 00:25:46 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 20:25:46 -0400 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 709708] Entities remain unresolved In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201106030025.p530PkfM016877@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=709708 --- Comment #4 from Henning Kockerbeck 2011-06-02 20:25:45 EDT --- Hi Jeff, thanks for your advice. Installing the deb package libxml-treebuilder-perl_4.0-1_all.deb from the coming Ubuntu 11.10 solved the problem, "real" entities are resolved fine. I say "real" entities because the entities in the automatically added legal notices ("Copyright ? &YEAR; &HOLDER; This material may only...") still remain unresolved. But that seems to be a different problem; as far as I can see these are written in the templates as &YEAR; and &HOLDER;, for whatever reason. So technically, these entities are resolved as well, just not as one would expect. Am I supposed to close this bug report or is this something you as a project member do? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Jun 7 09:37:47 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 05:37:47 -0400 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 711348] New: Linking to a bridgehead does not work in html formats Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Linking to a bridgehead does not work in html formats https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711348 Summary: Linking to a bridgehead does not work in html formats Product: Publican Version: future Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: publican AssignedTo: jfearn at redhat.com ReportedBy: mprpic at redhat.com QAContact: rlandman at redhat.com CC: mmcallis at redhat.com, publican-list at redhat.com Classification: Other Story Points: --- Description of problem: Assigning a bridgehead an ID, for example: Eels and then linking to it using an xref: produces a correct link in the html, but when clicked, it does not take you to the actual bridgehead. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Jun 7 14:21:09 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 10:21:09 -0400 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 711348] Linking to a bridgehead does not work in html formats In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201106071421.p57EL968001739@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=711348 Martin Prpic changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Priority|unspecified |medium Severity|unspecified |urgent -- 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 Norman at dunbar-it.co.uk Thu Jun 9 12:31:56 2011 From: Norman at dunbar-it.co.uk (Norman Dunbar) Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 13:31:56 +0100 Subject: [publican-list] Is it possible to work offline with Publican? Message-ID: <4DF0BD3C.9060004@dunbar-it.co.uk> Good afternoon, apologies if this has been dealt with before, I don't seem to be able to find a "search" option on the archives page for this list. I have also searched the BugZilla system and found nothing relevant there either. I have just installed Publican 2.3, to test it, on a Windows XP box which currently, doesn't have an internet connection. When I run a build to create a pdf file, I get the following error: Using XML::LibXSLT on d:/Program Files/Publican/xsl/pdf.xsl No such file or directoryI/O warning : failed to load external entity "http://docbook.sourceforge.net/release/xsl/current/fo/footnote.xsl" compilation error: file file:///d:/Program%20Files/Publican/xsl/pdf.xsl element include xsl:include : unable to load http://docbook.sourceforge.net/release/xsl/current/fo/footnote.xsl at Publican/Builder.pm line 889 However, if I run this when the box does have a connection, it works fine and created the pdf file. Disconnecting the network lead (!) results in the above error again. I have checked the DocBook XSL installation (the one bundled with Publican 2.3) and it has a catalog.xml with the following: - - So it looks to me as if it should be finding the footnotes.xsl file locally rather than needing to hit the internet all the time. Is there a problem here with my setup? What could I check to ensure that catalog.xml is being used etc etc. This is my first day with Publican and I'm liking what I see very much indeed. I would normally be using Linux for this work, but I'm running OpenSuse and Publican doesn't seem to like that distro. However, I would like to work offline as well as online when doing my documents. Many thanks. Cheers, Norm. -- Norman Dunbar Dunbar IT Consultants Ltd Registered address: Thorpe House 61 Richardshaw Lane Pudsey West Yorkshire United Kingdom LS28 7EL Company Number: 05132767 From jwulf at redhat.com Thu Jun 9 19:47:48 2011 From: jwulf at redhat.com (Joshua Wulf) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 15:47:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [publican-list] Is it possible to work offline with Publican? In-Reply-To: <4DF0BD3C.9060004@dunbar-it.co.uk> References: <4DF0BD3C.9060004@dunbar-it.co.uk> Message-ID: <63C99A09-9CE9-45DA-822B-D7C5C999EB4A@redhat.com> Norman, this is handled by the xml catalog on Linux. It's a mapping of remote dtd urls to local file system copies in /etc/catalog.xml. The system uses the local copy of a dtd whenever possible. Google "Windows xml catalog". A quick search from my phone shows some possibility that Windows also supports xml catalogs. - Josh ~ Kirtan is Life! ~ Sent from my iPhone. On 09/06/2011, at 10:50 PM, Norman Dunbar wrote: > Good afternoon, > > apologies if this has been dealt with before, I don't seem to be able to find a "search" option on the archives page for this list. I have also searched the BugZilla system and found nothing relevant there either. > > > I have just installed Publican 2.3, to test it, on a Windows XP box which currently, doesn't have an internet connection. When I run a build to create a pdf file, I get the following error: > > Using XML::LibXSLT on d:/Program Files/Publican/xsl/pdf.xsl > No such file or directoryI/O warning : failed to load external entity "http://docbook.sourceforge.net/release/xsl/current/fo/footnote.xsl" > > compilation error: file file:///d:/Program%20Files/Publican/xsl/pdf.xsl element include xsl:include : unable to load http://docbook.sourceforge.net/release/xsl/current/fo/footnote.xsl > at Publican/Builder.pm line 889 > > However, if I run this when the box does have a connection, it works fine and created the pdf file. Disconnecting the network lead (!) results in the above error again. > > I have checked the DocBook XSL installation (the one bundled with Publican 2.3) and it has a catalog.xml with the following: > > > - > - > > > > > > > So it looks to me as if it should be finding the footnotes.xsl file locally rather than needing to hit the internet all the time. > > Is there a problem here with my setup? What could I check to ensure that catalog.xml is being used etc etc. > > This is my first day with Publican and I'm liking what I see very much indeed. > > I would normally be using Linux for this work, but I'm running OpenSuse and Publican doesn't seem to like that distro. However, I would like to work offline as well as online when doing my documents. > > Many thanks. > > Cheers, > Norm. > > -- > Norman Dunbar > Dunbar IT Consultants Ltd > > Registered address: > Thorpe House > 61 Richardshaw Lane > Pudsey > West Yorkshire > United Kingdom > LS28 7EL > > Company Number: 05132767 > > _______________________________________________ > publican-list mailing list > publican-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/publican-list > Wiki: https://fedorahosted.org/publican > > From Norman at dunbar-it.co.uk Thu Jun 9 21:53:54 2011 From: Norman at dunbar-it.co.uk (Norman Dunbar) Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 22:53:54 +0100 Subject: [publican-list] Is it possible to work offline with Publican? In-Reply-To: <63C99A09-9CE9-45DA-822B-D7C5C999EB4A@redhat.com> References: <4DF0BD3C.9060004@dunbar-it.co.uk> <63C99A09-9CE9-45DA-822B-D7C5C999EB4A@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4DF140F2.5030303@dunbar-it.co.uk> Evening Joshua, On 09/06/11 20:47, Joshua Wulf wrote: > Norman, this is handled by the xml catalog on Linux. It's a mapping of remote dtd urls to local file system copies in /etc/catalog.xml. The system uses the local copy of a dtd whenever possible. Thanks. I've just finished installing Fedora 14 in a VirtualBox VM, and without the network, it works fine. Must be a windows thing then! Anyway, as a workaround, I now have a system I can use to work offline if I wish, that was my aim. I'll delve into the catalogue stuff when I get a chance. I've got Bob Stayton's book around here somewhere! Cheers, Norm. -- Norman Dunbar Dunbar IT Consultants Ltd Registered address: Thorpe House 61 Richardshaw Lane Pudsey West Yorkshire United Kingdom LS28 7EL Company Number: 05132767 From jfearn at redhat.com Thu Jun 9 22:29:23 2011 From: jfearn at redhat.com (Jeff Fearn) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 08:29:23 +1000 Subject: [publican-list] Is it possible to work offline with Publican? In-Reply-To: <4DF0BD3C.9060004@dunbar-it.co.uk> References: <4DF0BD3C.9060004@dunbar-it.co.uk> Message-ID: <4DF14943.3090306@redhat.com> Hi Norman, how did you install Publican on Windows? If you used the installer, it should have offered to do a local install of the Docbook DTD and XSL, if you select those options then you will be able to work offline. If you installed by another method, or didn't select them in the installer, then you need to get local copies of the DTD and XSL and edit the registry to let publican know where to find them. From the NSIS installation config: WriteRegStr HKLM "Software\Publican" "" $INSTDIR WriteRegStr HKLM "Software\Publican" "dtd_path" "$INSTDIR\DocBook_DTD" WriteRegStr HKLM "Software\Publican" "xsl_path" "$INSTDIR\docbook-xsl-1.75.2" Cheers, Jeff. From Norman at dunbar-it.co.uk Fri Jun 10 05:33:15 2011 From: Norman at dunbar-it.co.uk (Norman Dunbar) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 06:33:15 +0100 Subject: [publican-list] Is it possible to work offline with Publican? In-Reply-To: <4DF14943.3090306@redhat.com> References: <4DF0BD3C.9060004@dunbar-it.co.uk> <4DF14943.3090306@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4DF1AC9B.6030701@dunbar-it.co.uk> Morning Jeff, > Hi Norman, how did you install Publican on Windows? If you used the > installer, it should have offered to do a local install of the Docbook > DTD and XSL, if you select those options then you will be able to work > offline. I used the 2.3 installer which is the latest I could find, and selected to install everything. All the tools and all the brands. > If you installed by another method, or didn't select them in the > installer, then you need to get local copies of the DTD and XSL and edit > the registry to let publican know where to find them. > > From the NSIS installation config: > > WriteRegStr HKLM "Software\Publican" "" $INSTDIR > WriteRegStr HKLM "Software\Publican" "dtd_path" "$INSTDIR\DocBook_DTD" > WriteRegStr HKLM "Software\Publican" "xsl_path" > "$INSTDIR\docbook-xsl-1.75.2" Yes, those registry settings exist, but for some reason, it wants an internet connection to use the footnotes.xsl file, which does exist locally - and in the right place. As I mentioned to Joshua, I now have everything working fine in Fedora 14 running in a VirtualBox vm, so I'm happy that I can do on and offline work. However, I have another install of fop and docbook on that XP setup and that works fine without any need for the internet. Strange. Cheers, Norm. -- Norman Dunbar Dunbar IT Consultants Ltd Registered address: Thorpe House 61 Richardshaw Lane Pudsey West Yorkshire United Kingdom LS28 7EL Company Number: 05132767 From Norman at dunbar-it.co.uk Tue Jun 14 12:46:10 2011 From: Norman at dunbar-it.co.uk (Norman Dunbar) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:46:10 +0100 Subject: [publican-list] Indexterm causes line throw in generated pdf. Message-ID: <4DF75812.4040909@dunbar-it.co.uk> Good morning, I'm getting used to publican and I have to thank and congratulate everyone involved, it's brilliant! I've discovered a foible in a paragraph as follows: Blah blah blah publicanPublican blah blah blah... When I generate pdf, there is always a line feed after publican, so the above would render as: Blah blah blah publican blah blah blah... When rendered as HTML, all is fine. I would try and search the list archives, but there doesn't appear to be an option to do so. Sorry. I've had a look at the 'fo' temporary file and found the following (My formatting): Blah blah blah publican blah blah blah... So I can see why I'm getting a line feed - because of the fo:block around the fo:wrapper. Looking into index.xsl, there seems to be a test (beginning at line 292) for fop1.extensions being non-zero and if so, make a call to a template called 'inline.or.block' (begins at line 469) but it's at that point my brain loses the thread! It *appears* to me that if my is within a , then I should get an in-line and not a block. But I'm not an xsl guru, so I could be wrong. Cheers, Norm. -- Norman Dunbar Dunbar IT Consultants Ltd Registered address: Thorpe House 61 Richardshaw Lane Pudsey West Yorkshire United Kingdom LS28 7EL Company Number: 05132767 From jwulf at redhat.com Tue Jun 14 22:08:55 2011 From: jwulf at redhat.com (Joshua Wulf) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 08:08:55 +1000 Subject: [publican-list] Indexterm causes line throw in generated pdf. In-Reply-To: <4DF75812.4040909@dunbar-it.co.uk> References: <4DF75812.4040909@dunbar-it.co.uk> Message-ID: <4DF7DBF7.1060704@redhat.com> Google: indexterm site:www.redhat.com/archives/publican-list/ http://www.google.com.au/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=indexterm+site%3Awww.redhat.com%2Farchives%2Fpublican-list%2F Nets me this: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=592823 On 06/14/2011 10:46 PM, Norman Dunbar wrote: > Good morning, > > I'm getting used to publican and I have to thank and congratulate > everyone involved, it's brilliant! > > I've discovered a foible in a paragraph as follows: > > Blah blah blah > publicanPublican blah blah > blah... > > When I generate pdf, there is always a line feed after publican, so the > above would render as: > > Blah blah blah publican > blah blah blah... > > When rendered as HTML, all is fine. > > I would try and search the list archives, but there doesn't appear to be > an option to do so. Sorry. > > I've had a look at the 'fo' temporary file and found the following (My > formatting): > > > Blah blah blah publican > > > > > > blah blah blah... > > > So I can see why I'm getting a line feed - because of the fo:block > around the fo:wrapper. > > Looking into index.xsl, there seems to be a test (beginning at line 292) > for fop1.extensions being non-zero and if so, make a call to a template > called 'inline.or.block' (begins at line 469) but it's at that point my > brain loses the thread! > > It *appears* to me that if my is within a , then I > should get an in-line and not a block. But I'm not an xsl guru, so I > could be wrong. > > > > Cheers, > Norm. > -- Give us your feedback on JBoss Enterprise Documentation, take the key survey: http://www.keysurvey.com/survey/361436/1065/ From misty at redhat.com Tue Jun 14 22:35:02 2011 From: misty at redhat.com (Misty Stanley-Jones) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 18:35:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [publican-list] Indexterm causes line throw in generated pdf. In-Reply-To: <4DF7DBF7.1060704@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1913125452.676393.1308090902104.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> The bug linked by Josh is marked as fixed and verified. Norm, can you please verify which version of Publican you are running? If you are running a newer version than the one the bug says is fixed, this could be a regression, and the bug needs to be reopened. Thanks, Misty ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Joshua Wulf" > To: "Publican discussions" > Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 8:08:55 AM > Subject: Re: [publican-list] Indexterm causes line throw in generated pdf. > Google: indexterm site:www.redhat.com/archives/publican-list/ > > http://www.google.com.au/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=indexterm+site%3Awww.redhat.com%2Farchives%2Fpublican-list%2F > > Nets me this: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=592823 > > On 06/14/2011 10:46 PM, Norman Dunbar wrote: > > Good morning, > > > > I'm getting used to publican and I have to thank and congratulate > > everyone involved, it's brilliant! > > > > I've discovered a foible in a paragraph as follows: > > > > Blah blah blah > > publicanPublican blah blah > > blah... > > > > When I generate pdf, there is always a line feed after publican, so > > the > > above would render as: > > > > Blah blah blah publican > > blah blah blah... > > > > When rendered as HTML, all is fine. > > > > I would try and search the list archives, but there doesn't appear > > to be > > an option to do so. Sorry. > > > > I've had a look at the 'fo' temporary file and found the following > > (My > > formatting): > > > > > > Blah blah blah publican > > > > > > > > > > > > blah blah blah... > > > > > > So I can see why I'm getting a line feed - because of the fo:block > > around the fo:wrapper. > > > > Looking into index.xsl, there seems to be a test (beginning at line > > 292) > > for fop1.extensions being non-zero and if so, make a call to a > > template > > called 'inline.or.block' (begins at line 469) but it's at that point > > my > > brain loses the thread! > > > > It *appears* to me that if my is within a , then I > > should get an in-line and not a block. But I'm not an xsl guru, so I > > could be wrong. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > Norm. > > > > > -- > Give us your feedback on JBoss Enterprise Documentation, take the key > survey: > http://www.keysurvey.com/survey/361436/1065/ > > _______________________________________________ > publican-list mailing list > publican-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/publican-list > Wiki: https://fedorahosted.org/publican -- Misty Stanley-Jones, RHCE Content Author, ECS Brisbane IRC: misty_wrk (Freenode) / Ph: +61 7 3514 8105 / Internal: 88105 From Norman at dunbar-it.co.uk Wed Jun 15 07:37:48 2011 From: Norman at dunbar-it.co.uk (Norman Dunbar) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 08:37:48 +0100 Subject: [publican-list] Indexterm causes line throw in generated pdf. In-Reply-To: <4DF7DBF7.1060704@redhat.com> References: <4DF75812.4040909@dunbar-it.co.uk> <4DF7DBF7.1060704@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4DF8614C.4070301@dunbar-it.co.uk> Morning Joshua, > Google: indexterm site:www.redhat.com/archives/publican-list/ > > http://www.google.com.au/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=indexterm+site%3Awww.redhat.com%2Farchives%2Fpublican-list%2F > > Nets me this: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=592823 Thanks. I was attempting to search from the archives page itself. Next time, I'll use Google in the manner described. Cheers, Norm. -- Norman Dunbar Dunbar IT Consultants Ltd Registered address: Thorpe House 61 Richardshaw Lane Pudsey West Yorkshire United Kingdom LS28 7EL Company Number: 05132767 From Norman at dunbar-it.co.uk Wed Jun 15 08:27:07 2011 From: Norman at dunbar-it.co.uk (Norman Dunbar) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 09:27:07 +0100 Subject: [publican-list] Indexterm causes line throw in generated pdf. In-Reply-To: <1913125452.676393.1308090902104.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> References: <1913125452.676393.1308090902104.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> Message-ID: <4DF86CDB.7080700@dunbar-it.co.uk> Morning Misty, > The bug linked by Josh is marked as fixed and verified. Norm, can you please verify which version of Publican you are running? If you are running a newer version than the one the bug says is fixed, this could be a regression, and the bug needs to be reopened. publican -v returns version=2.5. I'm running on Fedora 14, 64 bit in a VirtualBox VM. The bug report mentions that Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.0 is available and has fixed the bug. I have Scientific Linux 6.0 running in another VM and it reports publican as version=2.1. Both versions show the line splitting that I reports. However, the bug linked to seems to be referring to problems in the po files, not in the generated pdf. Is it really the same thing? I've checked for all bugs in Publican with indexterm mentioned, there appear to be 4 in total, and all of them seem to relate to tranlsations. I *think* the problem lies within pdf.xsl. There is a template commented as being copied in from index.xsl from Docbook XSL version 1.72. It has the stuff added in two places which is not in Docbook XSL version 1.75 plus the test on $axf.extensions in Publican is different from that in Docbook which checks both $axf.extensions and $fop1.extensions. If I comment out the two lines in pdf.xsl, it works as I wish, but I have no idea of what other changes that will cause. HTH Cheers, Norm. -- Norman Dunbar Dunbar IT Consultants Ltd Registered address: Thorpe House 61 Richardshaw Lane Pudsey West Yorkshire United Kingdom LS28 7EL Company Number: 05132767 From jfearn at redhat.com Wed Jun 15 23:27:17 2011 From: jfearn at redhat.com (Jeff Fearn) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 09:27:17 +1000 Subject: [publican-list] Indexterm causes line throw in generated pdf. In-Reply-To: <4DF86CDB.7080700@dunbar-it.co.uk> References: <1913125452.676393.1308090902104.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> <4DF86CDB.7080700@dunbar-it.co.uk> Message-ID: <4DF93FD5.8030707@redhat.com> Hi Norman, On 06/15/2011 06:27 PM, Norman Dunbar wrote: > Morning Misty, > >> The bug linked by Josh is marked as fixed and verified. Norm, can you >> please verify which version of Publican you are running? If you are >> running a newer version than the one the bug says is fixed, this could >> be a regression, and the bug needs to be reopened. > publican -v returns version=2.5. I'm running on Fedora 14, 64 bit in a > VirtualBox VM. > > The bug report mentions that Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.0 is available > and has fixed the bug. I have Scientific Linux 6.0 running in another VM > and it reports publican as version=2.1. > > Both versions show the line splitting that I reports. However, the bug > linked to seems to be referring to problems in the po files, not in the > generated pdf. Is it really the same thing? No, that bug is unrelated to your issue. > I've checked for all bugs in Publican with indexterm mentioned, there > appear to be 4 in total, and all of them seem to relate to tranlsations. > > I *think* the problem lies within pdf.xsl. There is a template commented > as being copied in from index.xsl from Docbook XSL version 1.72. It has > the stuff added in two places which is not in Docbook XSL > version 1.75 plus the test on $axf.extensions in Publican is different > from that in Docbook which checks both $axf.extensions and > $fop1.extensions. You are taxing my memory now, but as I recall it we added that code because of other formatting issues related to indexterms. Please open a bug for this as we need to amke sure changing it doesn't introduce other issues. > If I comment out the two lines in pdf.xsl, it works as I > wish, but I have no idea of what other changes that will cause. It may render the output invalid in other indexterm use cases, if so the PDF build will fail or look bad. Cheers, Jeff. From Norman at dunbar-it.co.uk Thu Jun 16 07:48:18 2011 From: Norman at dunbar-it.co.uk (Norman Dunbar) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 08:48:18 +0100 Subject: [publican-list] Indexterm causes line throw in generated pdf. In-Reply-To: <4DF93FD5.8030707@redhat.com> References: <1913125452.676393.1308090902104.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> <4DF86CDB.7080700@dunbar-it.co.uk> <4DF93FD5.8030707@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4DF9B542.4070400@dunbar-it.co.uk> Morning Jeff, > Please open a bug for this as we need to make sure changing it doesn't > introduce other issues. Bug 713669 has been created. Cheers, Norm. -- Norman Dunbar Dunbar IT Consultants Ltd Registered address: Thorpe House 61 Richardshaw Lane Pudsey West Yorkshire United Kingdom LS28 7EL Company Number: 05132767 From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Jun 16 07:46:21 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 03:46:21 -0400 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 713669] New: Using the indexterm tag causes a line split in rendered PDF files. Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Using the indexterm tag causes a line split in rendered PDF files. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713669 Summary: Using the indexterm tag causes a line split in rendered PDF files. Product: Publican Version: 2.5 Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: publican AssignedTo: jfearn at redhat.com ReportedBy: norman at dunbar-it.co.uk QAContact: rlandman at redhat.com CC: mmcallis at redhat.com, publican-list at redhat.com Classification: Other Story Points: --- Description of problem: In a document where the tag is used, all generated PDF files have a line split after the indexed term. See "Steps to Reproduce" below. This does not occur in generated HTML. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): Publican 2.1 - on Scientific Linux 6.0 (RHEL 6.0) Publican 2.3 - on Windows 2000 & XP. Publican 2.5 on Fedora 14. How reproducible: 100% Steps to Reproduce: 1. Create a new book. 2. Enter the following in one of the chapters: Blah blah blah publicanPublican blah blah blah... 3. Build pdf document. Actual results: The generated xsl/fo is: Blah blah blah publican blah blah blah... And the text in the PDF looks like this: Blah blah blah publican blah blah blah... Expected results: Blah blah blah publican blah blah blah... Additional info: There appears to be an wrapped around the , this causes the linefeed after the indexed term. This is caused in pdf.xsl in which there is a template commented as being copied in from index.xsl from Docbook XSL version 1.72. The template name is "indexterm". This template has the stuff added in two places which is not in Docbook XSL version 1.75 plus the test on $axf.extensions in Publican is different from that in Docbook which checks both $axf.extensions and $fop1.extensions. If I comment out the two lines in pdf.xsl, it works as I wish, however, that may introduce other troubles elsewhere. -- 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 Jun 20 11:12:23 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 07:12:23 -0400 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 711348] Linking to a bridgehead does not work in html formats In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201106201112.p5KBCN37017319@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=711348 Jeff Fearn changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED --- Comment #1 from Jeff Fearn 2011-06-20 07:12:22 EDT --- Modified template anchor to match bridgehead better. Committed revision 1788. -- 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 Jun 20 12:14:04 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 08:14:04 -0400 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 706302] RFE: Improvements to publican-jboss brand for better docs bug BZ integration. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201106201214.p5KCE4GN019521@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=706302 Jeff Fearn changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Component|publican |publican-jboss AssignedTo|jfearn at redhat.com |rlandman at redhat.com QAContact|rlandman at redhat.com |jfearn at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Jun 20 12:15:39 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 08:15:39 -0400 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 708259] RFE: Support per-book additions to the legal notice In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201106201215.p5KCFdAv032308@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=708259 Jeff Fearn 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 Mon Jun 20 12:30:13 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 08:30:13 -0400 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 709708] Entities remain unresolved In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201106201230.p5KCUDsw003229@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=709708 Jeff Fearn changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |NOTABUG Last Closed| |2011-06-20 08:30:13 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Jun 21 16:59:35 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 12:59:35 -0400 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 709708] Entities remain unresolved In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201106211659.p5LGxZ4u026543@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=709708 Adam Stokes changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |astokes at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Jun 21 17:03:21 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 13:03:21 -0400 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 709708] Entities remain unresolved In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201106211703.p5LH3L6m021897@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=709708 Adam Stokes changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version|2.3 |2.5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Jun 21 17:02:44 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 13:02:44 -0400 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 709708] Entities remain unresolved In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201106211702.p5LH2iaq027289@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=709708 Adam Stokes changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|NOTABUG | Keywords| |Reopened --- Comment #5 from Adam Stokes 2011-06-21 13:02:42 EDT --- Im running Fedora 15 using Fedora's branding and seeing the same issue with the default Preface Specs: perl-XML-TreeBuilder-4.0-4.fc15.noarch perl-HTML-Tree-4.1-2.fc15.noarch publican-2.5-2.fc15.noarch My Entites file: Preface output: Legal Notice Copyright ? &YEAR; &HOLDER;. Any suggestions? -- 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 Jun 22 03:16:06 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 23:16:06 -0400 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 709708] Entities remain unresolved In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201106220316.p5M3G6fW020233@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=709708 Ruediger Landmann changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED CC| |r.landmann at redhat.com Resolution| |NOTABUG Last Closed|2011-06-20 08:30:13 |2011-06-21 23:16:05 --- Comment #6 from Ruediger Landmann 2011-06-21 23:16:05 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > Im running Fedora 15 using Fedora's branding and seeing the same issue with the > default Preface ... > Preface output: > Legal Notice > Copyright ? &YEAR; &HOLDER;. Hi Adam -- that's actually unrelated and seems to have been caused by a hiccup in Koji at some point; there's a separate bug open for it: bug 714810 -- 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 Jun 22 03:57:20 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 23:57:20 -0400 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 715158] New: No spacing below admonitions using FOP 1.0-16.fc15 Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: No spacing below admonitions using FOP 1.0-16.fc15 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=715158 Summary: No spacing below admonitions using FOP 1.0-16.fc15 Product: Publican Version: future Platform: x86_64 OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Component: publican AssignedTo: jfearn at redhat.com ReportedBy: smumford at redhat.com QAContact: rlandman at redhat.com CC: mmcallis at redhat.com, publican-list at redhat.com Classification: Other Story Points: --- Created attachment 505907 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=505907 Screenshot Description of problem: When building a PDF document using FOP 1.0.16.fc15 (which is required in order to build PDFs at all in Fedora 15), admonitions are rendered with no space below them. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): Publican: 2.5-2.fc15 Fop: 1.0-16.fc15 How reproducible: 100% Steps to Reproduce: 1. Install Fedora 15 (and Publican) 2. Install fop-1.0-16.fc15.noarch.rpm 3. Build any publican document. Actual results: Admonitions look 'crowded'; as there is no space between them and the following element. Expected results: Some sort of space formatted between document elements. Additional info: See attached screenshot for an example. -- 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 Jun 22 18:03:55 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 14:03:55 -0400 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 715382] New: Add switch to enable TOC in appendix Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Add switch to enable TOC in appendix https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=715382 Summary: Add switch to enable TOC in appendix Product: Publican Version: future Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: publican AssignedTo: jfearn at redhat.com ReportedBy: dlackey at redhat.com QAContact: rlandman at redhat.com CC: mmcallis at redhat.com, publican-list at redhat.com Classification: Other Story Points: --- There is no content listing in an appendix, while there is in a regular chapter. It would be nice to have a switch for publican.cfg that would enable the chapter-level TOC in an appendix. -- 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 Jun 23 22:01:46 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:01:46 -0400 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 705956] publican print_unused parses all files in the en-US and subfolders In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201106232201.p5NM1kIw009695@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=705956 Nick Bebout changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC|nb at fedoraproject.org | -- 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 Jun 23 22:01:51 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:01:51 -0400 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 705953] Formatting issues in PDF version of HTTP Connectors Load Balancing Guide In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201106232201.p5NM1pKe009739@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=705953 Nick Bebout changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC|nb at fedoraproject.org | -- 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 Jun 25 10:13:52 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 06:13:52 -0400 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 697363] RFE -- better tables in text format In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201106251013.p5PADqBu030067@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=697363 Jeff Fearn changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #1 from Jeff Fearn 2011-06-25 06:13:51 EDT --- I checked in a version with a new option, --NEW_TXT, it requires a patched HTML::FormatText::WithLinks::AndTables which I'll get to you soon. Not 100% happy with it ATM, but it's not too bad. -- 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 Jun 26 04:13:59 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 00:13:59 -0400 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 715158] No spacing below admonitions using FOP 1.0-16.fc15 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201106260413.p5Q4Dx0g002696@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=715158 Jeff Fearn changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED --- Comment #1 from Jeff Fearn 2011-06-26 00:13:58 EDT --- Tweaked admonition margins. Committed revision 1792. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Jun 28 01:39:30 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 21:39:30 -0400 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 717098] New: Brew failed on Microcontainer User Guide Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Brew failed on Microcontainer User Guide https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=717098 Summary: Brew failed on Microcontainer User Guide Product: Publican Version: 2.5 Platform: i686 OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: high Priority: unspecified Component: publican AssignedTo: jfearn at redhat.com ReportedBy: tnagamot at redhat.com QAContact: rlandman at redhat.com CC: mmcallis at redhat.com, publican-list at redhat.com Classification: Other Story Points: --- Description of problem: Although I was able to build a ja-JP version of html/pdf for Microcontainer User Guide, I failed to brew it with the error in https://brewweb.devel.redhat.com/taskinfo?taskID=3437969. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): The publican's version is 2.5. How reproducible: Check out the package in question and run brew. Steps to Reproduce: 1. svn co https://svn.devel.redhat.com/repos/ecs/JBoss_Enterprise_Application_Platform/releases/5.x/5.1.0/JBoss_Microcontainer_User_Guide/ JBoss_Microcontainer_User_Guide 2. cd JBoss_Microcontainer_User_Guid 3. publican package --brew --lang ja-JP Actual results: Beginning work on ja-JP FATAL ERROR: Malformed UTF-8 character (fatal) at /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi/XML/LibXML/Error.pm line 217. at /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/Publican/Builder.pm line 582 at /usr/bin/publican line 672 error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.38972 (%build) Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.38972 (%build) RPM build errors: Child returncode was: 1 EXCEPTION: Command failed. See logs for output. # ['bash', '--login', '-c', 'rpmbuild -bb --target noarch --nodeps builddir/build/SPECS/JBoss_Enterprise_Application_Platform-JBoss_Microcontainer_User_Guide-5-web-ja-JP.spec'] Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/mock/trace_decorator.py", line 70, in trace result = func(*args, **kw) File "/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/mock/util.py", line 324, in do raise mock.exception.Error, ("Command failed. See logs for output.\n # %s" % (command,), child.returncode) Error: Command failed. See logs for output. # ['bash', '--login', '-c', 'rpmbuild -bb --target noarch --nodeps builddir/build/SPECS/JBoss_Enterprise_Application_Platform-JBoss_Microcontainer_User_Guide-5-web-ja-JP.spec'] LEAVE do --> EXCEPTION RAISED Expected results: Brew successfully done with "closed" status. 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 Tue Jun 28 02:31:24 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 22:31:24 -0400 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 717098] Brew failed on Microcontainer User Guide In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201106280231.p5S2VOXv014055@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=717098 Jeff Fearn changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Component|publican |publican-jboss AssignedTo|jfearn at redhat.com |rlandman at redhat.com QAContact|rlandman at redhat.com |jfearn at redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Jeff Fearn 2011-06-27 22:31:23 EDT --- Same error happens for me when building it outside brew. Bug appears to be a malformed character in the brands Feedback file: ????????????????????? ...........................^ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Jun 28 03:20:40 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 23:20:40 -0400 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 717098] Brew failed on Microcontainer User Guide In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201106280320.p5S3Keju026287@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=717098 Jared Morgan changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jmorgan at redhat.com --- Comment #2 from Jared Morgan 2011-06-27 23:20:39 EDT --- (In reply to comment #0) > Description of problem: > Although I was able to build a ja-JP version of html/pdf for Microcontainer > User Guide, I failed to brew it with the error in > https://brewweb.devel.redhat.com/taskinfo?taskID=3437969. > > Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): > The publican's version is 2.5. Jeff, could this be something to do with pushing a book using the older publican-jboss brand package? tnagamot, Can you please confirm what publican-jboss brand package you are using? rpm -qi publican jboss or yum info publican-jboss Your brand package should return this version and release (this result for fedora 14: Name : publican-jboss Arch : noarch Version : 2.6 Release : 1.fc14 Size : 395 k Repo : installed >From repo : /publican-jboss-2.6-1.fc14.noarch Summary : Common documentation files for JBoss URL : https://fedorahosted.org/publican/ License : CC-BY-SA Description : This package provides common files and templates needed to build : documentation for JBoss with publican. Other ja-JP books have been making up to docs.redhat.com recently (I've been tagging them), so perhaps there's something else going on here? Cheers J > > How reproducible: > Check out the package in question and run brew. > > Steps to Reproduce: > 1. svn co > https://svn.devel.redhat.com/repos/ecs/JBoss_Enterprise_Application_Platform/releases/5.x/5.1.0/JBoss_Microcontainer_User_Guide/ > JBoss_Microcontainer_User_Guide > 2. cd JBoss_Microcontainer_User_Guid > 3. publican package --brew --lang ja-JP > > Actual results: > Beginning work on ja-JP > FATAL ERROR: Malformed UTF-8 character (fatal) at > /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi/XML/LibXML/Error.pm > line 217. > at /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/Publican/Builder.pm line 582 > at /usr/bin/publican line 672 > error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.38972 (%build) > Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.38972 (%build) > RPM build errors: > Child returncode was: 1 > EXCEPTION: Command failed. See logs for output. > # ['bash', '--login', '-c', 'rpmbuild -bb --target noarch --nodeps > builddir/build/SPECS/JBoss_Enterprise_Application_Platform-JBoss_Microcontainer_User_Guide-5-web-ja-JP.spec'] > Traceback (most recent call last): > File "/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/mock/trace_decorator.py", line 70, in > trace > result = func(*args, **kw) > File "/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/mock/util.py", line 324, in do > raise mock.exception.Error, ("Command failed. See logs for output.\n # %s" > % (command,), child.returncode) > Error: Command failed. See logs for output. > # ['bash', '--login', '-c', 'rpmbuild -bb --target noarch --nodeps > builddir/build/SPECS/JBoss_Enterprise_Application_Platform-JBoss_Microcontainer_User_Guide-5-web-ja-JP.spec'] > LEAVE do --> EXCEPTION RAISED > > > Expected results: > Brew successfully done with "closed" status. > > 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 Tue Jun 28 03:28:54 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 23:28:54 -0400 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 717098] Brew failed on Microcontainer User Guide In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201106280328.p5S3SsR8027958@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=717098 --- Comment #3 from Jared Morgan 2011-06-27 23:28:54 EDT --- I've svn up'd that directory, and successfully built the ja-JP version using publican-jboss v2.6.1.fc14 brand. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Jun 28 03:37:28 2011 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 23:37:28 -0400 Subject: [publican-list] [Bug 717098] Brew failed on Microcontainer User Guide In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201106280337.p5S3bST0016421@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=717098 Jeff Fearn changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |NOTABUG Last Closed| |2011-06-27 23:37:27 -- 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 r.landmann at redhat.com Tue Jun 28 04:47:25 2011 From: r.landmann at redhat.com (Ruediger Landmann) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 14:47:25 +1000 Subject: [publican-list] Publican 3.0 -- with DocBook 5 or without? Message-ID: <4E095CDD.5060407@redhat.com> Hey all; It's been six months since our last release and the bugfixes have been piling up, along with a few major enhancements. We'd like to ship Publican 3.0 sometime soon. However, we also face a major design decision. Publican was designed to support DocBook 4; now that DocBook 5 is out, do we want to move Publican to use that instead? Since we'll need new, separate stylesheets for DocBook 5, supporting both versions of the schema would require more maintenance than we're able to provide. It really has to be one or the other. The single biggest reason to move to DocBook 5 is that DocBook 4 is now feature-frozen and in maintenance mode; the DocBook project's energies are going into DocBook 5.[1] Against that, the new style sheets will create the potential for breakage. Documents will need careful checking to make sure that they render properly. This will require effort from everyone in the community. We need to know that Publican userbase is going to help find the inevitable problems and file bugs when they do. Opinions please, people? Cheers Rudi [1] http://www.docbook.org/tdg5/en/html/ch01.html#introduction-why-to-switch From jfearn at redhat.com Tue Jun 28 05:03:54 2011 From: jfearn at redhat.com (Jeff Fearn) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 15:03:54 +1000 Subject: [publican-list] Publican 3.0 -- with DocBook 5 or without? In-Reply-To: <4E095CDD.5060407@redhat.com> References: <4E095CDD.5060407@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4E0960BA.4010403@redhat.com> On 06/28/2011 02:47 PM, Ruediger Landmann wrote: > Hey all; > > It's been six months since our last release and the bugfixes have been > piling up, along with a few major enhancements. We'd like to ship > Publican 3.0 sometime soon. > > However, we also face a major design decision. Publican was designed to > support DocBook 4; now that DocBook 5 is out, do we want to move > Publican to use that instead? > > Since we'll need new, separate stylesheets for DocBook 5, supporting > both versions of the schema would require more maintenance than we're > able to provide. It really has to be one or the other. > > The single biggest reason to move to DocBook 5 is that DocBook 4 is now > feature-frozen and in maintenance mode; the DocBook project's energies > are going into DocBook 5.[1] > > Against that, the new style sheets will create the potential for > breakage. Documents will need careful checking to make sure that they > render properly. This will require effort from everyone in the community. > > We need to know that Publican userbase is going to help find the > inevitable problems and file bugs when they do. > > Opinions please, people? Since moving from DB4->DB5 is a big effort it's unlikely we'd release P3 without DB5, and then begin working on it right away. This decision is effectively deciding if we should move to DB5 in 2011. A lot of the effort we currently exert is for the section 508 compliance changes, if we move to DB5 I think we should drop this effort and refer any accessibility issues raised, or patches we come up with, upstream. Doing this reduces the effort to get DB5 ready by a significant degree. Cheers, Jeff. From jmorgan at redhat.com Tue Jun 28 05:07:59 2011 From: jmorgan at redhat.com (Jared Morgan) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 01:07:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [publican-list] Publican 3.0 -- with DocBook 5 or without? In-Reply-To: <4E095CDD.5060407@redhat.com> Message-ID: <039043e3-dc87-44d8-a759-025a0d6e097e@jmorgan.bne.redhat.com> You would have my support Rudi. I was frustrated when I discovered I couldn't have gentext on elements because enabling this change would require changes to DocBook 4.5. And changes to DocBook 4.5 were no longer possible. The PressGang styles (Maven jDocBook Blue and Grey base styles) for the JBoss Community already offer a namespaced version (for DocBook 5), and a non-namespaced version for DocBook 4.5 projects. Drools is already building to the new DocBook 5 DTD. So looking at cross compatibility with Publican and Maven, moving to DocBook 5 would be a positive move from my viewpoint. And, yes, I would most definitely raise bugs if I found any output issues. Cheers Jared ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ruediger Landmann" To: "Publican discussions" Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 2:47:25 PM Subject: [publican-list] Publican 3.0 -- with DocBook 5 or without? Hey all; It's been six months since our last release and the bugfixes have been piling up, along with a few major enhancements. We'd like to ship Publican 3.0 sometime soon. However, we also face a major design decision. Publican was designed to support DocBook 4; now that DocBook 5 is out, do we want to move Publican to use that instead? Since we'll need new, separate stylesheets for DocBook 5, supporting both versions of the schema would require more maintenance than we're able to provide. It really has to be one or the other. The single biggest reason to move to DocBook 5 is that DocBook 4 is now feature-frozen and in maintenance mode; the DocBook project's energies are going into DocBook 5.[1] Against that, the new style sheets will create the potential for breakage. Documents will need careful checking to make sure that they render properly. This will require effort from everyone in the community. We need to know that Publican userbase is going to help find the inevitable problems and file bugs when they do. Opinions please, people? Cheers Rudi [1] http://www.docbook.org/tdg5/en/html/ch01.html#introduction-why-to-switch _______________________________________________ publican-list mailing list publican-list at redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/publican-list Wiki: https://fedorahosted.org/publican From r.landmann at redhat.com Tue Jun 28 05:24:19 2011 From: r.landmann at redhat.com (Ruediger Landmann) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 15:24:19 +1000 Subject: [publican-list] Publican 3.0 -- with DocBook 5 or without? In-Reply-To: <4E0960BA.4010403@redhat.com> References: <4E095CDD.5060407@redhat.com> <4E0960BA.4010403@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4E096583.8070408@redhat.com> On 06/28/2011 03:03 PM, Jeff Fearn wrote: > A lot of the effort we currently exert is for the section 508 > compliance changes, if we move to DB5 I think we should drop this > effort and refer any accessibility issues raised, or patches we come > up with, upstream. Doing this reduces the effort to get DB5 ready by a > significant degree. Indeed; the fact that we can't take these issues upstream (where they actually belong) for DocBook 4 is itself a powerful incentive to switch IMHO. Cheers Rudi From dmison at redhat.com Tue Jun 28 07:04:50 2011 From: dmison at redhat.com (Darrin Mison) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 17:04:50 +1000 Subject: [publican-list] Publican 3.0 -- with DocBook 5 or without? In-Reply-To: <4E095CDD.5060407@redhat.com> References: <4E095CDD.5060407@redhat.com> Message-ID: <9B709947-7064-4853-BABD-E54DE1956E87@redhat.com> I'm in favor of 5 purely for the "topic authoring" features. On 28/06/2011, at 2:47 PM, Ruediger Landmann wrote: > Hey all; > > It's been six months since our last release and the bugfixes have been piling up, along with a few major enhancements. We'd like to ship Publican 3.0 sometime soon. > > However, we also face a major design decision. Publican was designed to support DocBook 4; now that DocBook 5 is out, do we want to move Publican to use that instead? > > Since we'll need new, separate stylesheets for DocBook 5, supporting both versions of the schema would require more maintenance than we're able to provide. It really has to be one or the other. > > The single biggest reason to move to DocBook 5 is that DocBook 4 is now feature-frozen and in maintenance mode; the DocBook project's energies are going into DocBook 5.[1] > > Against that, the new style sheets will create the potential for breakage. Documents will need careful checking to make sure that they render properly. This will require effort from everyone in the community. > > We need to know that Publican userbase is going to help find the inevitable problems and file bugs when they do. > > Opinions please, people? > > Cheers > Rudi > > > > [1] http://www.docbook.org/tdg5/en/html/ch01.html#introduction-why-to-switch > > _______________________________________________ > publican-list mailing list > publican-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/publican-list > Wiki: https://fedorahosted.org/publican -- Darrin Mison "I'm not a JBoss Developer, I just play one on TV" Content Author - Engineering Content Services, Red Hat, Inc. RHCSA #111-092-417 From jwulf at redhat.com Tue Jun 28 07:21:51 2011 From: jwulf at redhat.com (Joshua Wulf) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 03:21:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [publican-list] Publican 3.0 -- with DocBook 5 or without? In-Reply-To: <4E095CDD.5060407@redhat.com> References: <4E095CDD.5060407@redhat.com> Message-ID: If it's six months between releases then it seems we eat the switch now or in another six months. Is there any benefit in waiting, or is it just postponing the inevitable? I'm always happy to raise bugs. - Josh ~ Kirtan is Life! ~ Sent from my iPhone. On 28/06/2011, at 2:44 PM, Ruediger Landmann wrote: > Hey all; > > It's been six months since our last release and the bugfixes have been piling up, along with a few major enhancements. We'd like to ship Publican 3.0 sometime soon. > > However, we also face a major design decision. Publican was designed to support DocBook 4; now that DocBook 5 is out, do we want to move Publican to use that instead? > > Since we'll need new, separate stylesheets for DocBook 5, supporting both versions of the schema would require more maintenance than we're able to provide. It really has to be one or the other. > > The single biggest reason to move to DocBook 5 is that DocBook 4 is now feature-frozen and in maintenance mode; the DocBook project's energies are going into DocBook 5.[1] > > Against that, the new style sheets will create the potential for breakage. Documents will need careful checking to make sure that they render properly. This will require effort from everyone in the community. > > We need to know that Publican userbase is going to help find the inevitable problems and file bugs when they do. > > Opinions please, people? > > Cheers > Rudi > > > > [1] http://www.docbook.org/tdg5/en/html/ch01.html#introduction-why-to-switch > > _______________________________________________ > publican-list mailing list > publican-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/publican-list > Wiki: https://fedorahosted.org/publican From jwulf at redhat.com Tue Jun 28 07:21:53 2011 From: jwulf at redhat.com (Joshua Wulf) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 03:21:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [publican-list] Publican 3.0 -- with DocBook 5 or without? In-Reply-To: <9B709947-7064-4853-BABD-E54DE1956E87@redhat.com> References: <4E095CDD.5060407@redhat.com> <9B709947-7064-4853-BABD-E54DE1956E87@redhat.com> Message-ID: is part of 5.1, which isn't released yet. ~ Kirtan is Life! ~ Sent from my iPhone. On 28/06/2011, at 5:05 PM, Darrin Mison wrote: > I'm in favor of 5 purely for the "topic authoring" features. > > On 28/06/2011, at 2:47 PM, Ruediger Landmann wrote: > >> Hey all; >> >> It's been six months since our last release and the bugfixes have been piling up, along with a few major enhancements. We'd like to ship Publican 3.0 sometime soon. >> >> However, we also face a major design decision. Publican was designed to support DocBook 4; now that DocBook 5 is out, do we want to move Publican to use that instead? >> >> Since we'll need new, separate stylesheets for DocBook 5, supporting both versions of the schema would require more maintenance than we're able to provide. It really has to be one or the other. >> >> The single biggest reason to move to DocBook 5 is that DocBook 4 is now feature-frozen and in maintenance mode; the DocBook project's energies are going into DocBook 5.[1] >> >> Against that, the new style sheets will create the potential for breakage. Documents will need careful checking to make sure that they render properly. This will require effort from everyone in the community. >> >> We need to know that Publican userbase is going to help find the inevitable problems and file bugs when they do. >> >> Opinions please, people? >> >> Cheers >> Rudi >> >> >> >> [1] http://www.docbook.org/tdg5/en/html/ch01.html#introduction-why-to-switch >> >> _______________________________________________ >> publican-list mailing list >> publican-list at redhat.com >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/publican-list >> Wiki: https://fedorahosted.org/publican > > > > -- > Darrin Mison > "I'm not a JBoss Developer, I just play one on TV" > Content Author - Engineering Content Services, Red Hat, Inc. > RHCSA #111-092-417 > > > _______________________________________________ > publican-list mailing list > publican-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/publican-list > Wiki: https://fedorahosted.org/publican From mylists at teambla.com Tue Jun 28 07:41:14 2011 From: mylists at teambla.com (Bram Vogelaar) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 09:41:14 +0200 Subject: [publican-list] Publican 3.0 -- with DocBook 5 or without? In-Reply-To: References: <4E095CDD.5060407@redhat.com> <9B709947-7064-4853-BABD-E54DE1956E87@redhat.com> Message-ID: +1 for the db5 change. there are some useful additions in the 5.x specs. Also publican is one of the last db projects "stuck" at db4, if you wait for another cycle to loose ground on other projects. bram On 28 June 2011 09:21, Joshua Wulf wrote: > is part of 5.1, which isn't released yet. > > ~ Kirtan is Life! ~ > Sent from my iPhone. > > On 28/06/2011, at 5:05 PM, Darrin Mison wrote: > > > I'm in favor of 5 purely for the "topic authoring" features. > > > > On 28/06/2011, at 2:47 PM, Ruediger Landmann wrote: > > > >> Hey all; > >> > >> It's been six months since our last release and the bugfixes have been > piling up, along with a few major enhancements. We'd like to ship Publican > 3.0 sometime soon. > >> > >> However, we also face a major design decision. Publican was designed to > support DocBook 4; now that DocBook 5 is out, do we want to move Publican to > use that instead? > >> > >> Since we'll need new, separate stylesheets for DocBook 5, supporting > both versions of the schema would require more maintenance than we're able > to provide. It really has to be one or the other. > >> > >> The single biggest reason to move to DocBook 5 is that DocBook 4 is now > feature-frozen and in maintenance mode; the DocBook project's energies are > going into DocBook 5.[1] > >> > >> Against that, the new style sheets will create the potential for > breakage. Documents will need careful checking to make sure that they render > properly. This will require effort from everyone in the community. > >> > >> We need to know that Publican userbase is going to help find the > inevitable problems and file bugs when they do. > >> > >> Opinions please, people? > >> > >> Cheers > >> Rudi > >> > >> > >> > >> [1] > http://www.docbook.org/tdg5/en/html/ch01.html#introduction-why-to-switch > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> publican-list mailing list > >> publican-list at redhat.com > >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/publican-list > >> Wiki: https://fedorahosted.org/publican > > > > > > > > -- > > Darrin Mison > > "I'm not a JBoss Developer, I just play one on TV" > > Content Author - Engineering Content Services, Red Hat, Inc. > > RHCSA #111-092-417 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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: From lbrindle at redhat.com Tue Jun 28 08:49:24 2011 From: lbrindle at redhat.com (Lana Brindley) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 18:49:24 +1000 Subject: [publican-list] Publican 3.0 -- with DocBook 5 or without? In-Reply-To: References: <4E095CDD.5060407@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4E099594.9090907@redhat.com> On 06/28/2011 05:21 PM, Joshua Wulf wrote: > If it's six months between releases then it seems we eat the switch now or in another six months. Is there any benefit in waiting, or is it just postponing the inevitable? ^^ This. > > I'm always happy to raise bugs. Likewise :) L -- Lana Brindley Content Author Engineering Content Services +61 7 3514 8178 - ext (85) 88178 RHEL5 RHCT: 605008757717273 RHEL5 RHCSA: 100-043-694 "See first that the design is wise and just: that ascertained, pursue it resolutely; do not for one repulse forego the purpose that you resolved to effect." William Shakespeare, on why planning is important. From dmison at redhat.com Tue Jun 28 09:05:03 2011 From: dmison at redhat.com (Darrin Mison) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 05:05:03 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [publican-list] Publican 3.0 -- with DocBook 5 or without? In-Reply-To: References: <4E095CDD.5060407@redhat.com> <9B709947-7064-4853-BABD-E54DE1956E87@redhat.com> Message-ID: <586A2BE6-29D6-4147-81A6-5C12D26A6FE7@redhat.com> > is part of 5.1, which isn't released yet. > *sad face* +1 for the inevitable march of progress though :-) From jfearn at redhat.com Tue Jun 28 09:52:36 2011 From: jfearn at redhat.com (Jeff Fearn) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 19:52:36 +1000 Subject: [publican-list] Publican 3.0 -- with DocBook 5 or without? In-Reply-To: References: <4E095CDD.5060407@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4E09A464.2070003@redhat.com> On 06/28/2011 05:21 PM, Joshua Wulf wrote: > If it's six months between releases then it seems we eat the switch now or in another six months. Is there any benefit in waiting, or is it just postponing the inevitable? IMHO it's just delaying the inevitable, but it will delay P3 and cause extra work for writers & translators. I'm pretty sure we can get most books converted from DB4 to DB5 by modifying old2new to use the supplied db4-upgrade.xsl. However there will be misses that require writer intervention and there will be an as yet unmeasured affect on translations. Another consideration is FOP 1.0 which has many changes from FOP 0.95 and applying the fixes required for that to our existing DB4 mods is an unknown quantity of work that will have no application on the DB5 XSL. Cheers, Jeff. From mhideo at redhat.com Tue Jun 28 12:55:06 2011 From: mhideo at redhat.com (Mike Hideo) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 22:55:06 +1000 Subject: [publican-list] Publican 3.0 -- with DocBook 5 or without? In-Reply-To: <4E09A464.2070003@redhat.com> References: <4E095CDD.5060407@redhat.com> <4E09A464.2070003@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4E09CF2A.6050308@redhat.com> On 06/28/2011 07:52 PM, Jeff Fearn wrote: > On 06/28/2011 05:21 PM, Joshua Wulf wrote: >> If it's six months between releases then it seems we eat the switch >> now or in another six months. Is there any benefit in waiting, or is >> it just postponing the inevitable? > > IMHO it's just delaying the inevitable, but it will delay P3 and cause > extra work for writers & translators. > > I'm pretty sure we can get most books converted from DB4 to DB5 by > modifying old2new to use the supplied db4-upgrade.xsl. However there > will be misses that require writer intervention and there will be an as > yet unmeasured affect on translations. > Can someone help me run a test with the translation memory system? +1 regardless - Mike From hertzog at debian.org Tue Jun 28 13:31:01 2011 From: hertzog at debian.org (Raphael Hertzog) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 15:31:01 +0200 Subject: [publican-list] Publican 3.0 -- with DocBook 5 or without? In-Reply-To: <4E095CDD.5060407@redhat.com> References: <4E095CDD.5060407@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20110628133101.GQ23826@rivendell.home.ouaza.com> Hello, On Tue, 28 Jun 2011, Ruediger Landmann wrote: > However, we also face a major design decision. Publican was designed > to support DocBook 4; now that DocBook 5 is out, do we want to move > Publican to use that instead? I think we should follow at some point, it's all a question of timing. Last time I checked, there were very few good free software dealing with Relax NG / Synchrotron (except some java implementation). Have libxml2 and the associated tools caught up already? In any case, I would suggest to make a last release based on docbook 4 and to keep around (an unofficial) branch for it, because some people will take a lot of time to switch and it's always good to be able to accept patches if some external contributors are providing them for their own needs... $0.02 from the Debian package maintainer Cheers, -- Rapha?l Hertzog ? Debian Developer Follow my Debian News ? http://RaphaelHertzog.com (English) ? http://RaphaelHertzog.fr (Fran?ais) From Norman at dunbar-it.co.uk Tue Jun 28 14:03:35 2011 From: Norman at dunbar-it.co.uk (Norman Dunbar) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 15:03:35 +0100 Subject: [publican-list] Publican 3.0 -- with DocBook 5 or without? In-Reply-To: <20110628133101.GQ23826@rivendell.home.ouaza.com> References: <4E095CDD.5060407@redhat.com> <20110628133101.GQ23826@rivendell.home.ouaza.com> Message-ID: <4E09DF37.5080801@dunbar-it.co.uk> On 28/06/11 14:31, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > In any case, I would suggest to make a last release based on docbook > 4 and to keep around (an unofficial) branch for it, because some people > will take a lot of time to switch and it's always good to be able to > accept patches if some external contributors are providing them for their > own needs... > > $0.02 from the Debian package maintainer Well, as a simple user, I'm in agreement with the suggestion above. But then again, I don't have to do any work! Cheers, Norm. -- Norman Dunbar Dunbar IT Consultants Ltd Registered address: Thorpe House 61 Richardshaw Lane Pudsey West Yorkshire United Kingdom LS28 7EL Company Number: 05132767 From jwulf at redhat.com Tue Jun 28 14:09:28 2011 From: jwulf at redhat.com (Joshua Wulf) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 00:09:28 +1000 Subject: [publican-list] Publican 3.0 -- with DocBook 5 or without? In-Reply-To: <20110628133101.GQ23826@rivendell.home.ouaza.com> References: <4E095CDD.5060407@redhat.com> <20110628133101.GQ23826@rivendell.home.ouaza.com> Message-ID: <4E09E098.7020502@redhat.com> What about the timing of Docbook 5.1? When does that go gold? I remember Rudi saying that the Docbook x.0 releases are for testing, and the x.1 release is the first production-recommended one. Does a "Publican with DB 5 support" give us "Publican with DB 5.1 support" automatically? Or is there another round of work involved in that? - Josh On 06/28/2011 11:31 PM, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Hello, > > On Tue, 28 Jun 2011, Ruediger Landmann wrote: >> However, we also face a major design decision. Publican was designed >> to support DocBook 4; now that DocBook 5 is out, do we want to move >> Publican to use that instead? > > I think we should follow at some point, it's all a question of timing. > > Last time I checked, there were very few good free software dealing > with Relax NG / Synchrotron (except some java implementation). Have > libxml2 and the associated tools caught up already? > > In any case, I would suggest to make a last release based on docbook > 4 and to keep around (an unofficial) branch for it, because some people > will take a lot of time to switch and it's always good to be able to > accept patches if some external contributors are providing them for their > own needs... > > $0.02 from the Debian package maintainer > > Cheers, -- Give us your feedback on JBoss Enterprise Documentation, take the key survey: http://www.keysurvey.com/survey/361436/1065/ From jfearn at redhat.com Tue Jun 28 21:50:58 2011 From: jfearn at redhat.com (Jeff Fearn) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 07:50:58 +1000 Subject: [publican-list] Publican 3.0 -- with DocBook 5 or without? In-Reply-To: <4E09E098.7020502@redhat.com> References: <4E095CDD.5060407@redhat.com> <20110628133101.GQ23826@rivendell.home.ouaza.com> <4E09E098.7020502@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4E0A4CC2.20702@redhat.com> On 06/29/2011 12:09 AM, Joshua Wulf wrote: > What about the timing of Docbook 5.1? When does that go gold? > > I remember Rudi saying that the Docbook x.0 releases are for testing, > and the x.1 release is the first production-recommended one. > > Does a "Publican with DB 5 support" give us "Publican with DB 5.1 > support" automatically? Or is there another round of work involved in that? Any new features would require another round of work. Jeff. From jfearn at redhat.com Tue Jun 28 22:08:34 2011 From: jfearn at redhat.com (Jeff Fearn) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 08:08:34 +1000 Subject: [publican-list] Publican 3.0 -- with DocBook 5 or without? In-Reply-To: <20110628133101.GQ23826@rivendell.home.ouaza.com> References: <4E095CDD.5060407@redhat.com> <20110628133101.GQ23826@rivendell.home.ouaza.com> Message-ID: <4E0A50E2.7050500@redhat.com> On 06/28/2011 11:31 PM, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Hello, > > On Tue, 28 Jun 2011, Ruediger Landmann wrote: >> However, we also face a major design decision. Publican was designed >> to support DocBook 4; now that DocBook 5 is out, do we want to move >> Publican to use that instead? > > I think we should follow at some point, it's all a question of timing. > > Last time I checked, there were very few good free software dealing > with Relax NG / Synchrotron (except some java implementation). Have > libxml2 and the associated tools caught up already? We'd use XML::LibXML::RelaxNG for this, which is built on libxml2. FYI there is test code in head that, if you set dtdver in your publican.cfg to 5.1b2, or similar, will use the RelaxNG validation. It was part of the "is this reasonably possible" testing. > In any case, I would suggest to make a last release based on docbook > 4 and to keep around (an unofficial) branch for it, because some people > will take a lot of time to switch and it's always good to be able to > accept patches if some external contributors are providing them for their > own needs... I'm happy to carry a branch for 2.5, but the current head has diverged from 2.5 to the degree that releasing it will delay DB5 support until 2012. Which is fine by me, I just don't want people badgering me for DB5x support when I'm too busy to do it and support a very much changed DB4 version. > $0.02 from the Debian package maintainer Sweet! Cheers, Jeff. From jfearn at redhat.com Thu Jun 30 08:12:23 2011 From: jfearn at redhat.com (Jeff Fearn) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 18:12:23 +1000 Subject: [publican-list] Publican 3.0 -- with DocBook 5 or without ... WITH! In-Reply-To: <4E0A50E2.7050500@redhat.com> References: <4E095CDD.5060407@redhat.com> <20110628133101.GQ23826@rivendell.home.ouaza.com> <4E0A50E2.7050500@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4E0C2FE7.8030401@redhat.com> So almost everyone seems in favour of moving to DocBook 5! Rudi has weakened my resolve with yummy cider, Bulmers, and I have agreed to do a 2.6 release which will contain a selection of non invasive fixes for bugs that are currently in the Modified, ON_QA, or Verified states. After that we'll concentrate on moving the common content and Users Guide to DocBook 5, then rebuild the common brand from scratch based on the nes DocBook XSL and CSS. Then it's test, test, test ... and maybe some more cider! Thanks for your input everybody :) Cheers, Jeff. From jaredsmith at jaredsmith.net Thu Jun 30 19:00:06 2011 From: jaredsmith at jaredsmith.net (Jared Smith) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 16:00:06 -0300 Subject: [publican-list] Publican 3.0 -- with DocBook 5 or without ... WITH! In-Reply-To: <4E0C2FE7.8030401@redhat.com> References: <4E095CDD.5060407@redhat.com> <20110628133101.GQ23826@rivendell.home.ouaza.com> <4E0A50E2.7050500@redhat.com> <4E0C2FE7.8030401@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 5:12 AM, Jeff Fearn wrote: > Rudi has weakened my resolve with yummy cider, Bulmers, and I have agreed to > do a 2.6 release which will contain a selection of non invasive fixes for > bugs that are currently in the Modified, ON_QA, or Verified states. Watch out for Rudi -- he's sneaky like that. From my side, I can only promise that if Publican starts to get DocBook 5 support, that I'll try to learn my way around DocBook 5 and provide feedback as I'm able. -- Jared Smith Fedora Project Leader