Re: Installation guide is not updated in some languages

Samuel Thibault <[email protected]> (2017-06-20):
> Samuel Thibault, on lun. 19 juin 2017 23:16:09 +0200, wrote:
> The buildweb.sh script is basically just forcing 
> 
> export official_build="1" (which is set for package upload anyway)
> export web_build="1"
> export manual_target="for_wdo"
> 
> 
> The only differences are
> 
> - these links on the website:
> 
>     example preconfiguration file from <span class="phrase"><a class="ulink" href="http://www.debian.org/releases/stretch/example-preseed.txt" target="_top">http://www.debian.org/releases/stretch/example-preseed.txt</a></span>.
> 
> which are made
> 
>     example preconfiguration file from <span class="phrase"><a class="ulink" href="../example-preseed.txt" target="_top">../example-preseed.txt</a></span>.
> 
> in the package. I'd say we can use relative links on the website as
> well.

Looks good to me, yes.

> - the link to the various formats:
> 
>     The document you are now reading, which is the official version of the
>     Installation Guide for the stretch release of Debian; available
>     in <a class="ulink" href="http://www.debian.org/releases/stretch//installmanual" target="_top">various formats and
>     translations</a>.

(nitpick: Probably a slash too many before installmanual.)

> in the website, and 
> 
>     This document you are now reading, in plain ASCII, HTML or PDF format.
> 
>     <div class="itemizedlist"><ul class="itemizedlist" type="disc">
>     <li class="listitem"><p>
>     <a class="ulink" href="install.en.txt" target="_top">install.en.txt</a>
>     </p></li>
>     <li class="listitem"><p>
>     <a class="ulink" href="install.en.html" target="_top">install.en.html</a>
>     </p></li>
>     <li class="listitem"><p>
>     <a class="ulink" href="install.en.pdf" target="_top">install.en.pdf</a>
>     </p></li>
>     </ul></div>
> 
> in the package. The real difference is "and [various] translations".  I
> don't think this is worth making a difference between the website and
> the package?

I don't think it's required, but it might be nice to give doc/www
people a chance to voice their opinion here.


KiBi.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJZSGU9AAoJEP+RSvDCs1UgGQEP/3c9cmDLtbLW96CHYlxopkcC
e6zySpl+9eP4BTp3MAwwP3czuUFBsxFY98S1nSQYrqbO56+jgbHfBEy2if6KUGCV
mhvsq20o7XXla4SKrXtaDeZ5pUbRMVaOW8MrpbFE6Ale8RPMjbAEDw94865/76iD
QmwXDUOISgxPLeKjrWNTWFFUa5en2WXHjcigBDB/87LHGsQEYlo4aLe3Rz7Fni6W
XjCSNeD1Nn4TxArvSOABJYEM2z5Ywl4TF/3LAnnJyjnM+SZS3B/rdtzWN/YltJ+x
U8LmbZuRUGLuNIwy0/18pD3ym9DofNqJPrrR+A9jCIzseFF/Br7CEodsOZEooaIA
gMSGCAg47J4W7f89be3SevNA8tz0b+TSCCnjQ3sbr9js8683ZhM1U485+rq6LXhZ
EKv0UcVYP7PnxXvYpKqRvdVaFFs/lng5kmXbEzg/R3ex4z4W24f2BjvB6EkBar+Q
OSkhm+O3nUwJw9XLa4n4Xmz5l9tCdifCFEfSLIRMCIs+qjmNdiifhADO8ksgm4/x
2GyWFPUZJhfzlUTVLFyMowP8hzIwcKMb/ZfneSRYG57OzXFGJ2b9PN435/Lc92nv
9B+yXVxaFoltA1FsnQGeO7BzHIqjp8mxxk+3XrsXVnfEWMF7AdtXGDVXKL8UyTe0
VmrqV5goAMfZuEXoTgea
=+0NM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----