Tom Wickline wrote:
Tony Lambregts wrote:
I don't think it is nessasary for a configure or shell script for this. I think we can just include it. Declaring it as an entity and wraping it in <programlisting> _should_ work. Tom: you can try this your self or if you want/need some help with this I'll see what I can do.
Declaring the sample config as an entity is as easy as the following patch.
Index: wine-pkg.sgml =================================================================== RCS file: /home/wine/wine/documentation/wine-pkg.sgml,v retrieving revision 1.1 diff -u -r1.1 wine-pkg.sgml --- wine-pkg.sgml 19 Jan 2001 20:58:37 -0000 1.1 +++ wine-pkg.sgml 26 Jan 2003 18:02:24 -0000 @@ -5,8 +5,8 @@ %authors;
<!entity packaging SYSTEM "packaging.sgml"> +<!entity config SYSTEM "samples/config"> ]>
<book id="index">
-----
After making that change you can include the config file anywhere you like by using the directive &config;
Getting around the <wineconf> problem is another problem however. It looks to me that this wineconf could just as easily been surrounded by stars or braces or whatever since getting rid of the lines does not seem to have affected any of my programs. If this is the case then getting rid of <> and replacing them with something else is the (easiest) solution.
If we cannot replace the <> around wineconf the burning question for me is what is the directive to tell the make process ignore <wineconfig> Does anyone have an idea? Vincent...?
Le dim 26/01/2003 à 15:38, Tony Lambregts a écrit :
If we cannot replace the <> around wineconf the burning question for me is what is the directive to tell the make process ignore <wineconfig> Does anyone have an idea? Vincent...?
Define it somewhere as a noop? I'm not familiar at all with writing docbook, I only played with the executable tools.
Vincent
Vincent Béron wrote:
Le dim 26/01/2003 à 15:38, Tony Lambregts a écrit :
If we cannot replace the <> around wineconf the burning question for me is what is the directive to tell the make process ignore <wineconfig> Does anyone have an idea? Vincent...?
Define it somewhere as a noop? I'm not familiar at all with writing docbook, I only played with the executable tools.
LOL. So it seems that by default I am the current docbook "expert". That's almost scary.
Oh well... This leaves us with two options. Both options require that we modifiy the config file.
Option 1: Since AFAICT <wineconfig> is just a comment that serves no real purpose we just get rid of it.
Option 2: wrap the config file in
<![CDATA[ ....
]]>
<! [CDATA[ is a directive to ignore all tags untill ]]>. Unfortunately this needs to be embeded in the document that uses it or it won't work. So we have two ways of doing this. one way is to modify the config file so that they are in it (ugly) or we use a configure script to wrap <![CDATA[ and ]]> around the config and create a new file. (This is not something I know how to do, but if it is nessesary I am willing to learn)
My vote (for what its worth ) if <wineconf> is not needed lets just get rid of it.
Tony Lambregts wrote:
LOL. So it seems that by default I am the current docbook "expert". That's almost scary.
Well you know alot more about this than I do :)
My vote (for what its worth ) if <wineconf> is not needed lets just get rid of it.
Would # [wineconf] work ? If not I guess I would vote to remove it as well..... if it serves no purpose.
Tom
Tom Wickline wrote:
Tony Lambregts wrote:
My vote (for what its worth ) if <wineconf> is not needed lets just get rid of it.
Would # [wineconf] work ? If not I guess I would vote to remove it as well..... if it serves no purpose.
In order to be able to simply include the sample config file in the documnetation something has to be done about the lines # <wineconf> and # </wineconf>. These are just comments and IFAICT can be safely removed. I have submitted two versions of this patch. config1.txt just removes the lines whereas config2.txt changes the < and > to [ and ]. Since I have run all my programs without problems with <wineconf> removed I do not anticipate a probem with getting one of these patches accepted <g>.
Change Log: Get rid of <wineconf> and </winconf> from the sample config as they interfere with including the file in the documentation.
File Changed: documentation/samples/config
On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Tony Lambregts wrote:
In order to be able to simply include the sample config file in the documnetation something has to be done about the lines # <wineconf> and # </wineconf>. These are just comments and IFAICT can be safely removed.
Not exactly, they're markers used by tools/wineconf to mark the parts that should be copied into the generated config file, in addition to the autogenerated drive config.
Ove Kaaven wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Tony Lambregts wrote:
In order to be able to simply include the sample config file in the documnetation something has to be done about the lines # <wineconf> and # </wineconf>. These are just comments and IFAICT can be safely removed.
Not exactly, they're markers used by tools/wineconf to mark the parts that should be copied into the generated config file, in addition to the autogenerated drive config.
OK. But as place holders they can be anything so how about this.
Change Log: Modify the wineconf tags so that the sample config can be included in the documentation.
Files Changed: documentation/config tools/wineconf
On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Tom Wickline wrote: [...]
My vote (for what its worth ) if <wineconf> is not needed lets just get rid of it.
Would # [wineconf] work ? If not I guess I would vote to remove it as well..... if it serves no purpose.
I believe it is used by the Wine configuration tool, winesetuptk, to delimit the area it is modifying.
However this would have to be checked in winesetuptk's code as I am not sure it really needs it (i.e. I believe it should be able to edit the file without messing up the layout and comments and without the <wineconf> tags).
-
Francois Gouget -
Ove Kaaven -
Tom Wickline -
Tony Lambregts -
Vincent Béron