Re: Octave Forge website internally re-structured, checks advisable

[Julien Bect]

Le 16/06/2017 à 17:07, Olaf Till a écrit :
> among other internal changes at the Octave Forge website the index
> pages of all packages are now generated dynamically. This provides
> better control over appearance and links.
>
> The current version of the generate_html package ideally should
> produce identical pages, for local checking. But at the website we
> don't depend on the generate_html version anymore for the index pages.
>
> Though I've tested the change, I couldn't look into everything in
> every package. So it'd be advisable that maintainers take a look at
> their packages(') index page(s) to check that everything is there and
> the links work.
>
> Note that you'll possibly have to reload the page with your browser,
> to avoid using a cached copy (this is a problem with the _previous_
> versions of the index pages).

Hi Olaf,

There are a few problems on https://octave.sourceforge.io/stk/index.html :

 * Some fields from the DESCRIPTION are missing: Last Release Date, 
Package Author, Package Maintainer.

 * <b> </b> tags in the description text appear as plain text.  (If 
such tags are a problem, I can remove them from future OF releases.)

-----

If I generate the doc directly in octave 4.2.1 with generate_html 0.3.1,

>> generate_package_html ('stk', [], 'octave-forge')

all the fields are there (there are no <b> tags in this case, but it is 
normal, they are added by the MM).

However:

1) the release date is set to the current date (19-Jun-2017), and not 
the date in DESCRIPTION (6-May-2017).

2) the "Licence" field now contains "Read licence" instead of "GNU 
Public Licence v3".

-----

If I generate using the MM directly :

> hg update -r 2.4.2
> make octaveforge-release
> firefox build/octaveforge/stk-html/stk/index.html &

I also get all the fields almost right.  Remarks:

1) the date is also wrong, but this time it's my fault (the date is set 
automatically by the MM to the current date, I will fix that);

2) the "Licence" field is correct in this case.


@++
Julien