Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 17:59:22 +0100 From: Mark Ovens <mark@ukug.uk.freebsd.org> To: Andrew Boothman <andrew@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> Cc: nbm@mithrandr.moira.org, wosch@cs.tu-berlin.de, nik@freebsd.org, doc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Automatic Documentation Index Message-ID: <19991006175922.A373@marder-1> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.991006004053.andrew@ukug.uk.FreeBSD.org> References: <19991004234956.A977@marder-1> <XFMail.991006004053.andrew@ukug.uk.FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 12:40:53AM +0100, Andrew Boothman wrote: > > On 04-Oct-99 Mark Ovens wrote: > > Seems like a good thing to me. I've just tried it out (had to change > > the paths to the FAQ and Handbook for the DocBook docs). There are > > quite a few ports that install docs other than (& sometimes instead > > of) manpages but don't advertise the fact. > > Exactly. Hence the need to index them. > > > As a temporary solution, until the +DOC files are added, how about > > looking for html files in the +CONTENTS files? Something like > > > > # cd /var/db/pkg > > # grep '\.html$' */+CONTENTS > > > > and parsing the output in some way (e.g. if there are several .html > > files installed including "index.html" then just list the index > > and ignore the others). It's not perfect, but it would dig out all > > the "hidden" documentation. > > I fully understand what you're getting at here. And I can see how this would > work. I'm a little worried about the possability that this could pick up on > installed files that arn't actually documentation. > > I'm not sure if it's likely, but it would really confuse a user to be pointed > to files that aren't documentation. Plus, in the +DOCS file we have a > description of the file that we're linking to, we wouldn't know what the file > is if we link to it this way. I thought about that myself. All the script needs to do is read the <TITLE></TITLE> block at the top of the files in question (in the case of HTML files). BTW, I'm trying to borrow a "Perl for Dummies" type book from work so that I can help out with this. > Plus, we don't want the ports folk to think that > this negates the need to retrofit +DOCS files to as many ports as possible. > I also considered that it could automatically generate initial +DOCS files. This would be sufficient for many ports and the rest would need tweaking by hand (the ports related to DocBook itself are a case in point; there's masses of HTML files there). Maybe this would encourage support from the ports maintainers as they would have some (maybe all) the work done for them. > What are everyone else's opinions on this? > > --- > Andrew Boothman <andrew@ukug.uk.FreeBSD.org> > FreeBSD UK User Group > http://ukug.uk.FreeBSD.org/~andrew/ > http://ukug.uk.FreeBSD.org/ -- STATE-OF-THE-ART: Any computer you can't afford. OBSOLETE: Any computer you own. ________________________________________________________________ FreeBSD - The Power To Serve http://www.freebsd.org My Webpage http://ukug.uk.freebsd.org/~mark/ mailto:mark@ukug.uk.freebsd.org http://www.radan.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19991006175922.A373>