"For a little more info on this topic, see these mailing list archives: * http://lists.suse.com/archive/suse-AMD64/2003-Dec/0031.html * http://lists.suse.com/archive/suse-AMD64/2003-Dec/0034.html And you can see it's not a Gentoo-specific problem!" The links 404 for me. Changing "suse-AMD64" to "suse-amd64" seems to point to the correct info.
/proj documents are maintained by project teams themselves.
Created attachment 32687 [details] /proj/en/base/amd64/install-software.xml Fixed the bug and made doc DTD-compliant (otherwise cvs would reject it). In short, <warn> <note> <impo> <ul> elements may not be appear under a <p> element, they need to be on the same level. BTW, any reason you are using <!DOCTYPE sections SYSTEM "http://www.gentoo.org/dtd/book.dtd"> instead of the preferred <!DOCTYPE sections SYSTEM "/dtd/book.dtd"> ? You are forcing a request to www.g.o when you run xmllint locally and also force cvs.g.o to access www.g.o at commit time. The latter uses local files. Check http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/doc-tipsntricks.xml#doc_chap2_pre3 to know more. Feel free to contact me if you need any help.
I tried to commit the change Xavier suggested, but i got lots of xml errors. Asking in -doc explained me that the book.dtd has been changed and our xml docs turned invalid, cause we use <pre> inside <li>. (e.g. in /xml/htdocs/proj/en/amd64/bugs.xml) Swift: Can those changes be undone, or do you see a way around this mess ? We'd like to have our docs valid again and with the same structure they have atm.
Ok, i fixed did both fix the dtd lines and made all remaining xml files DTD-compliant again. I consider this as fixed.
Unless the website still hasn't reflected the changes, I think the original problem still exists. If the links are working, just ignore me.
Attached file hasn't been committed indeed. Files have been made DTD-compliant but the issue that triggered this bug hasn't been fixed. Please use amd64 in lowecase in the mentioned URL. Thanks.
Sorry, i assumed xavier had already "fixed" the original bug. "Fixed the bug and made doc DTD-compliant (otherwise cvs would reject it). In short, <warn> <note> <impo> <ul> elements may not be appear under a <p> element, they need to be on the same level." I misunderstood that ;-) In CVS now.
