Bug 8421 – patched build.xml : rewriting of the grub section

• Status: RESOLVED FIXED
• Product: [OLD] Docs-user

[Description Pierre-Henri Jondot 2002-09-26 13:53:27 UTC]

the grub section in the installation doc was, IMHO, wrong. (as concerns
grub numbering scheme)

Here is a modified build.xml from the cvs sources I fetched two hours ago...
(rev 1.17)

Changed the date, the rev, added a author line too (couldn't help myself, but as
the changes are somewhat minor, I won't complain if this line gets deleted !)

As concerns grub, I did explain the problem in bug 7565.

I just hope I didn't make a syntax error with xml...

[Comment 1 Pierre-Henri Jondot 2002-09-26 13:54:04 UTC]

Created attachment 4212 [details]
the build.xml

[Comment 2 Pierre-Henri Jondot 2002-09-26 14:11:27 UTC]

Created attachment 4214 [details]
diff between precedent revision and the proposed build.xml

here is the result of a diff between the original build.xml (got it in text
mode) and the proposed build.xml.

[Comment 3 John Davis (zhen) (RETIRED) 2002-09-26 17:44:18 UTC]

Ok, I will add this. Is this the XML diff, or text? It says text, but I just
want to make sure.

//ZhEN

[Comment 4 Pierre-Henri Jondot 2002-09-27 00:02:42 UTC]

I guess it is the xml diff, I just wanted to precise that I downloaded the xml
source using the << as text >> choice rather than << download >> that gave me
yesterday different results... (But when I had a look this morning, the two gave
me the same thing...)

So don't take into account my remark, it is a xml diff, and it should apply too
to the xml you modified yesterday, (as numerotation of lines doesn't change)
except for the revision of course.

[Comment 5 John Davis (zhen) (RETIRED) 2002-09-29 11:45:51 UTC]

Yeah, we really need this in the xml code format to patch properly. If you could
save the page as xml, then diff against the xml code, that would be great.
Otherwise, I can not patch it.

Thanks,

//ZhEN

[Comment 6 Pierre-Henri Jondot 2002-09-29 14:47:41 UTC]

AFAIK, IT IS XML DOC FORMAT (read my previous comment)

And if it doesn't patch with build.xml, it might be because of the other changes
that did get applied since I submitted this... 

(and that is not my fault, really...)

[Comment 7 John Davis (zhen) (RETIRED) 2002-09-29 15:49:10 UTC]

Alright, it is changed.

//ZhEN

[Comment 8 Pierre-Henri Jondot 2002-09-30 00:57:40 UTC]

Thanks, I did have a look at the cvs and it seems the patch did get applied fine.

Just a little note however, my name did get added twice... (I already added it
once and perhaps did it get added a second time automatically, I don't know)

Once as an author line, and once as an editor line...

I do not deserve such recognition !

Pierre-Henri Jondot.

[Comment 9 John Davis (zhen) (RETIRED) 2002-09-30 07:56:08 UTC]

Heh.
I will fix that too ;-)

//ZhEN