- From: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 04:02:04 +0100
- To: Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@iki.fi>
- cc: QA Dev <public-qa-dev@w3.org>, Frederic Schutz <schutz@mathgen.ch>
Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@iki.fi> wrote: > >My RPM doesn't have a clean patch at the moment, but a hunk of perl code >that does some in-place edits to check.cfg and the httpd.conf snippet. >It's a perl hunk instead of a patch because it uses stuff provided by >RPM, basically some directory locations which is better from a RPM point >of view than a patch with "hardcoded" paths. And it avoids the need for >a separate patch file. You can see the hunk in the spec file in CVS, >look for "# Localize config files". Yell if you need clarification on >that. Hmmm. I'm not really sure we can avoid that since RPM wants tokens -- e.g. %{_sysconfdir} -- in there and we want real paths. I'm not sure there is any problem with v.w3.org not using the config file from CVS, but it should be usable for CVS/tarball users without pre-processing with RPM. The DEBUG option has been disabled in CVS, but other then that I can't really see any way to eliminate that perl chunk in the spec file. >>>The version number of the validator should be somewhere in the UI. >> >>[...] Do you think we need the "human readable" version number also? > >Yes, I do, as long as we have the "human readable" ones in Bugzilla and >refer to them in public elsewhere. Ok, header.html now includes it in the initial <h1> on every page (including Validator output). >Of course, that causes some extra things for the "release manager", >but there are other places where this is needed anyway. So it's >just one addition to the list. Sure, it may even be helpfull in tightening up the release process. >>Anyone have anything left to deal with? > >Apart from a couple of trivial documentation updates (checklink needs >Config::General), nothing here that should absolutely go into 0.6.2. >There are some checklink bug reports that I'll be working on soon(tm), >but nothing critical that would prevent this release. Well, Checklink can be more easily updated independantly of the Validator so I suppose that's ok. In general I'm really hoping this will be the last release of 0.6.x before focusing on 0.7.0. At which point, BTW, I would like to see Checklink and the Validator get better integrated from the POV of the user visiting http://validator.w3.org/. -- Now Playing "What Am I Gonna Do With You" by "Barry White"", from the album "The Ultimate Collection".
Received on Sunday, 23 February 2003 22:02:19 UTC