[01:17] mdke: are you around? [17:20] hi all [17:20] mdke: are you around? [17:22] we have an issue with xubuntu docs, whereby basically the packaging of xubuntu docs results in a conflict with ubuntu docs. i should have foreseen this, but i didn't. we are considering packaging the documentation converted to html, and wanted to see if you thought that would be easier than modifying the build process to create yelp-compatible docs. [17:28] brb [21:06] j1mc: sounds tricky [21:06] j1mc: how does the conflict arise? [21:28] mdke: the conflict arises in that the debian/build instructions basically tell the build process to build the docs in the same spot as the ubuntu docs. [21:28] which, of course, makes sense [21:30] moreover, when yelp and ubuntu docs are installed, just opening yelp opens the ubuntu docs (i think... it at least opens gnome documentation). [21:31] i was thinking that just building out the html might be a better approach, but i'm not sure how difficult this would be, either. [21:32] it would essentially involve creating a local copy of help.ubuntu.com, but the url's converted to be local file copies specific to xubuntu. [21:41] j1mc: that's a bit silly to install them in the same spot as the ubuntu-docs [21:42] j1mc: you should just install them somewhere else, in any event you'll need to patch yelp, right? [21:42] mdke: understood. i'm not really a build-file master, though. [21:42] mdke: would patching yelp be difficult to do? [21:44] j1mc: i don't know, but haven't you been intending to do it since the beginning of this release cycle? [21:45] to be honest, i didn't know that a patch would be necessary. sorry i'm not the most advanced with these kinds of things. [21:45] I thought that was the point of you having a new branch [21:45] the point of having the new branch was to use yelp, that's correct, but i didn't know that a patch on yelp would be necessary. [21:46] argh. [21:47] yeah. :/ [21:47] ok, I suppose if you had all the same documents as ubuntu-docs, then they could be installed in the same place and yelp would use them instead. I don't know if even that would work [21:47] but it's truly ugly as a solution [21:47] right - especially in that ubuntu docs and xubuntu docs would now conflict [21:48] that's not really going to work, I don't think [21:48] and both are part of the overall *-desktop metapackage for ubuntu and xubuntu [21:48] because the idea is that people can run different desktops at the same time [21:48] yes [21:49] I think what you'll need to do is to have a yelp-xubuntu package or similar and patch it to point at the xubuntu docs. Even that might be quite tricky [21:49] at this stage in the release cycle I'd recommend doing whatever you did last release cycle... [21:49] going back and updating the original package? [21:50] ... the original branch? you really think that building out the html would be too difficult at this point? [21:50] well, how did you ship the documents in the last release? as html? [21:51] yes - do you recall the "docs that aren't valid docbook, but work together as a large meta-document"? [21:51] yes [21:51] so why don't you do the same again? [21:51] with your new branch [21:52] hmm... the current branch has ghelp links in there. would the fix-urls.sh script convert them into something that would work in the same way? i don't think it would. [21:52] that script just converts the ghelp links for publishing help.ubuntu.com, right? [21:53] yes, the idea of th fix-urls.sh script is to convert ghelp links into regular html links. But you would have to look at the script and ensure that it covers all of your links [21:53] I'm sure you could adapt it [21:53] right [21:54] ok, I have to go now [21:54] see you [21:54] i would just have to modify my links in my initial start page of the meta-document, i think. [21:55] thanks, mdke. [21:55] i'll look into it. [21:55] good luck! [21:55] thanks :)