[Xorp-users] Xorp documentation

Pierre Lepropre pierre.lepropre at student.ulg.ac.be
Sun Feb 27 23:51:21 PST 2011


Ben,

I'm wondering if there isn't a possibility to export the wiki to latex directly. I'm gonna look into that and keep you updated.

Regards.

Sorry for my brevity, this mail was sent from my smartphone. Veuillez excuser ma brièveté : ce courrier a été envoyé depuis mon smartphone.

Ben Greear <greearb at candelatech.com> a écrit :

>On 02/27/2011 02:54 PM, Pierre Lepropre wrote:
>> Ben,
>>
>>> Well, don't overestimate my own knowledge of xorp.  It's a huge project
>>> and there is lots I don't know myself, especially about the more interesting
>>> configuration options for various routing protocols, etc.
>>
>> That answers actually scares me regarding all the stuff I have to deal
>> with in XORP in so little time :D. I'm just gonna die :D.
>
>Turns out, you don't need to know it all to make some progress :)
>
>>> I did a quick read on 'doku', and it seems it stores it's source
>>> in flat text files.  Maybe we could just periodically copy them to
>>> some directory in xorp.ct and commit them?  That way we have a
>>> backup that is easy for everyone to share.
>>
>> Yeah, sure, why not.
>
>Ok.  Please make sure you have permission and assuming you do,
>please put the files up somewhere that I can get them, and I'll
>put them into xorp.ct.
>
>We can update the files manually for now, and if the files are
>ever being changed quite often, we can set up some automated process
>to commit and push changes.
>
>>> That sounds nice...but unless someone else is posting patches, that
>>> means it's all on me.
>>
>> Oh no, when I meant "suggestions", it was about the documentation, not
>> about the sources ;-). I understand you've already got your hands full.
>>
>>>   It will scale much better if other folks put
>>> some effort towards the latex.  For that matter, it doesn't have to
>>> be an official patch against the latex...just an email posting with
>>> corrected text and I'll figure out how to get it in latex if that's
>>> what it takes.
>>
>> The biggest drawback (and advantage, according to the circumstances) of
>> LaTeX is that every time you modify the source files, you have to
>> recompile them to see the results. I'm not sure that's a burden that we
>> want to assume in order to readily discuss, correct, and improve
>> specific parts of the documentation ?
>
>That's a good point.  We could periodically sweep info from the wiki
>into the latex, but that still requires that someone do the work.
>I like the printability (and conversion to pdf) that tex files give,
>so it would take a lot of really good wiki docs before I'd consider
>making the wiki the primary documentation source.
>
>Also, once you install the tools, I think it's pretty quick to compile
>the documentation.  Been a while since I tried it though...
>
>>> Thanks.  Your wiki is very nicely done.  I don't necessarily want to host
>>> it, but I would like to have the backup files within my control.  Then,
>>> if your project ever does cease operations, I could simply install doku
>>> and bring the wiki back online. That's basically what I had to do with xorp
>>> (forked it to xorp.ct and hosted it on my own site), so I'm a bit touchy
>>> about these things :)
>>
>> That's exactly why I suggested to host it somewhere else as fast as
>> possible to ease that worry: our European project is supposed to be
>> terminated by September 2011... Our wiki will clearly be staying there
>> for a couple of more months/years, but after that date, I can't assume
>> anything. Nevertheless I won't let it be taken down unless I'm sure
>> someone else has got the backup running up.
>
>I can certainly host it on our servers if the old ones go away.
>
>Thanks,
>Ben
>
>
>-- 
>Ben Greear <greearb at candelatech.com>
>Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com



More information about the Xorp-users mailing list