httpd-docs mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jacek Prucia <jacek.pru...@acn.waw.pl>
Subject Re: common docs infrastructure
Date Tue, 11 Mar 2003 00:23:04 GMT
On Sat, 8 Mar 2003 21:10:18 +0100
Astrid Ke├čler <kess@kess-net.de> wrote:

> > httpd-docs/
> >    build.sh
> >    build.cmd
> >    target/
> >       httpd.xml
> >       flood.xml
> >    lib/
> >    style/
> >       common.xsl
> >       httpd.xsl
> >       flood.xsl
> >    httpd-1.3/
> >    httpd-2.0/
> >    flood/
> >    output/
> 
> > Some notes on this layout: Yep, I think that xml files schould be placed
> > in subdirectories relative to build script. That way build.xml wont be
> > translated into build.html.en (yep... that exclude=build/*.xml in
> > patternset isn't working... at least for me :).
> 
> I don't know what is going wrong at your site. exclude=build/*.xml works
> fine for me.

Just tried it minute ago, like this:

cvs co site-tools
cvs co httpd-docs-2.0
cd httpd-docs-2.0/manual
mv ../../site-tools/httpd-docs-build .
cd httpd-docs-build
./build.sh

after (successful) build I get build.html.en right next to build.xml. Since
this works for other people, then let's just consider this a bad on my side
(will look at this later).

> > Another big change is the output dir. This
> > makes sense only, and only if all httpd docs are translated into xml. It
> > suits flood fine however, as we going to start with xml.
> 
> Hm, I'm not sure about the output dir. This could only be a parent
> directory for several subdirs each corresponding to a input dir
> http-2.0, flood, etc.

Yes -- I didn't think of this before. With one common output dir and
overleaping files (like install.xml) this could get messy.

> I like the idea to have all documentation around
> http under one umbrella. With some index directly at the output dir
> itself we could use the whole output tree 1:1 for the online docs. But
> this would result into new URLs. I'm not sure whether this would be an
> advantage for the reader.

Well... Personally I don't like that idea either...

> An other point about the output dir: it is only cosmetical question, but
> I don't like unbalanced directories. If we have an output dir for all
> docs we should structure the input dirs the same way :-)

Yes. Another thing I haven't foreseen (which is why all my ideas must be
reviewed preciselly ;))

>  httpd-docs/
>     build.sh
>     build.cmd
>     target/
>        httpd.xml
>        flood.xml
>     lib/
>     style/
>        common.xsl
>        httpd.xsl
>        flood.xsl
>     input/          or source or something else
>       httpd-1.3/
>       httpd-2.0/
>       flood/
>     output/
>       httpd-1.3/
>       httpd-2.0/
>       flood/

Anyone else with comments?

BTW. How about moving new directory layout (along with some problems and
possible solutions) to some file inside CVS (not sure where). All this new
structure stuff will probably have to wait and it would be nice to have some
thoughs about it persist in cvs.

regards,
Jacek Prucia

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org


Mime
View raw message