From: Felipe A. v. de W. (faw) <fe...@ca...> - 2007-05-31 03:13:22
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 05/30/2007 02:30 PM, dr...@ve... wrote: > In message <BAY...@ph...l>you write: [...] >> It looks like you're an Admin on the bugs tracker, so I think either >> of us could post an issue about this to the sourceforge lifelines >> bug tracker. I think that sounds like an appropriate idea. Would you >> care to post it? > > I can - but I want to figure this out first. > I don't believe that this is a lifelines bug - per se. > It sounds like the following is happening: > 1. the debian build unpacks the 'sources' which include > docs/ll-userguide.pdf > 2. the first build skips generation of ll-userguide.pdf because it is > present. > 3. if 'distclean' is used, the pdf is removed Yes, distclean is used. > 4. the second build fails to generate the pdf > > We could 'hack' around the failure by removing the pdf from the distclean > target, but the correct behavior is for distclean to remove the pdf. > So this isn't a distclean bug. Indeed. I agree that distclean should remove the pdf. > This then goes back to the generation of the pdf. > and those 4 lines of text in ll-userguide.mxl > <glossentry><glossterm>\ #</glossterm><glossdef> > <!-- note above has extra space between \ and # - without this > conversion to pdf gets confused openjade does some tex processing... > --> > If I am not mistaken, xml claims that \ and # are not special characters > when used in this context. So there should be nothing special about > the sequence '\#' or '\ #'. Correct. > I think there is a bug in the redhat distributed openjade pdf generation > where '\#' doesn't get handed off the TeX properly and causes the TeX > processing to fall on it's face, badly. We avoided the problem by changing > the string to '\ #' - now technically inserting the extra space is wrong, > but visually it looks ok in the formatted manual. That's my understanding of this issue. > I'm thinking here, yes we have a minor problem in that we have inserted an > extra space, which absolutely isn't required in the glossary term being > formatted, but it 'looks ok'. But it shouldn't cause the debian port to > fail to generate the pdf document, because '\ #' is a perfectly legitimate > string that openjade should translate. If the debian port is failing to > generate the pdf because of this, there is a bug in debian's openjade and the > bug report goes in their bugzilla. Indeed. But we should probably report it to Fedora, since their version of OopenJade should also translate the # without problems. > Felipe, my questions are as follows > 1. is the failure to generate the pdf because you applied your patch > to ll-userguide.xml? If so, that would seem to be clear indication > that the patch is wrong. No. The failure happens without my patch. > 2. If the failure is occuring without applying your patch, then it appears > that the debian openjade translation of xml to pdf is broken. I can't tell, I would forward it to OpenJade maintainers, they could take a deeper look. ;) > 3. If the issue is, well we have to apply the patch because the table > is incorrect without the patch, since the text is saying 'the escape > mechanism...' to represent the # character in a search pattern is > '/ <space> #' but it really should be '/#', I would argue that > using '/ #' is artistic license to make the text more readable, if > the intent was to indicate a space was required, the visable resultant > text would have been something like '/ <space> #'. > In fact, looking at the data, I think it would be more readable if > we 'fixed' the next two entries so '\$' became '\ $' and '\\' '\ \' > as they would be more readable, because the default character spacing > is too small, and inserting some whitespace between the two characters is > a typographical technique to make it readable - not a indication > that the separation between two printable characters is significant - > other than asthetic. Ok. > As an aside, this discussion has made me look at the data in the table, and > I think that the rules being used to put space after a backslash (\) seem > to insert way too little space. I think the table is much more readable with > extra space added. after the backslash. But this creates yet another problem > as then TeX has issues with '\ \' seems it has to be '\ \ ' to get thru. > So, Comments? I really don't have comments about the guides and manuals itself, I agree with this mail, I just really find it strange that I can't built the packages and after some investigation that there are builds from the CVS code. The problem of building a second time seems to be related to the fact that it couldn't generate the docs, probably with my patch that would solve the problem (at least for now). I just want to have some input from lifelines-dev, as soon as I got the new lifelines uploaded to unstable I will take care to file a bug in openjade to have some input from them. :-) Kind regards, - -- Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw) "Debian. Freedom to code. Code to freedom!" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGXj2lCjAO0JDlykYRAn+gAKC0xNX56SxMVoX+O5azKcjKMt5SsQCdHhrI OiMlfkAQk3gdKIMx8+DVgLY= =vFRQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |