Use https instead of http

[stevenyoungs]

Update URLs to use https instead of http

I have only updated URLs

1. Which are not part of a copyright
2. Are not a dtd, xmlns etc
   My understanding is that these should remain as http. Please let me know if this is wrong.
3. Where the http and https variants both work and deliver the same content

I have updated URLs in comments as it makes it easier to find the remaining http:// URLs

[stevenyoungs]

@Nick-Hall I've not fully updated the po files yet. Is updating them the correct approach - can you update weblate from the po files if I do finish updating them? I do not want to create additional work for translators from this change (whether in 6.0 or a late version)

[stevenyoungs]

The following gramps URLs no longer work. Is there a working equivalent?
http://library.gramps-project.org
http://developers.gramps-project.org

[Nick-Hall]

I've not fully updated the po files yet. Is updating them the correct approach - can you update weblate from the po files if I do finish updating them?

Don't update the po files. They are controlled by Weblate.

Is there any point in updating the svg files?

Ideally the Example database should contain a mix of http:// and https:// references.

Please rebase this on the master branch. If there are any broken links you can create a PR against the gramps60 branch.

[Nick-Hall]

The following gramps URLs no longer work. Is there a working equivalent?
http://library.gramps-project.org
http://developers.gramps-project.org

I'm not sure what the library was, but try:
https://gramps-project.org/wiki/index.php/Portal:Community
https://gramps-project.org/wiki/index.php/Portal:Developers

The first link is in a test file, so it may even be fictitious. I suggest you leave it - we still need to test the http:// version.

[stevenyoungs]

• Rebased on to master
• removed changes to po files
• removed changes to test data

[stevenyoungs]

Is there any point in updating the svg files?

Only for the reason that it makes it easier to find the remaining http:// urls.

[jralls]

The first link is in a test file, so it may even be fictitious. I suggest you leave it - we still need to test the http:// version.

It's definitely fictitious. It's the supposed URL of "Aunt Martha's Attic", a repository that occurs in several test files and the example database.

http://developers.gramps-project.org appears at the bottom of several translations of the man pages. bb6ce5d changed it to http://www.gramps\-project.org/wiki/index.php?title=Portal:Developers in the English man page and 8159aca updated the scheme to https. The translations should obvs be made to match the English one.

Off topic to this PR: It would be worthwhile to change the man page generation to some mechanism that can use gettext so that the translations are done through Weblate.

[stevenyoungs]

http://developers.gramps-project.org appears at the bottom of several translations of the man pages. bb6ce5d changed it to http://www.gramps\-project.org/wiki/index.php?title=Portal:Developers in the English man page and 8159aca updated the scheme to https. The translations should obvs be made to match the English one.

Hopefully I've done that in this PR. I'm not a roff expert (and have no wish to be one) but given that the - was not escaped in several of the translated URLs I guess the man pages did not display correctly.

[Nick-Hall]

The gramps.1.in files are generated using a build script. I suggest that you run this after updating the rst files.

[jralls]

The gramps.1.in files are generated using a build script. I suggest that you run this after updating the rst files.

Something's not working right. All but one of the rst files (pt_BR.rst) has the wiki developer portal URL and all but one of the translated gramps.1.in (fr) has the incorrect http://developers.gramps-project.org one. The produced man pages reflect the URL in gramps.1.in, not foo.rst. I don't see any evidence after a build that gramps.1.in is touched, though thanks to jhbuild I'm using the outdated distutils python setup.py build formula instead of build. I installed gramps-5.2.4 with pip to double check the installed gramps.1.gz files for the URL.

[giotodibondone]

Existing issue 10546 :[Tip of the day] Update obsolete terms in tips.xml (including links from "http" to "https") pointed out by @CallMeDave

[stevenyoungs]

The gramps.1.in files are generated using a build script. I suggest that you run this after updating the rst files.

Something's not working right. All but one of the rst files (pt_BR.rst) has the wiki developer portal URL and all but one of the translated gramps.1.in (fr) has the incorrect http://developers.gramps-project.org one. The produced man pages reflect the URL in gramps.1.in, not foo.rst. I don't see any evidence after a build that gramps.1.in is touched, though thanks to jhbuild I'm using the outdated distutils python setup.py build formula instead of build. I installed gramps-5.2.4 with pip to double check the installed gramps.1.gz files for the URL.

I can't see anywhere that gramps/doc/makefile is actually run from the pipeline, nor evidence of sphinx being installed.

On Windows (MSYS2) make man gives
make: *** [Makefile:142: man] Segmentation fault
😞 make html also gives a segmentation fault.

is make the right way to build the docs? There's also an update_doc.py file

[Nick-Hall]

With a couple of small tweaks, I can generate the manual pages with:

python update_man.py --man

They contain a substitution variable for the Gramps version which is populated during the build.

With a few tweaks to en.rst I can generate a gramps.1.in file to be essentially the same as we are using now.

Experimenting a little I can generate a pot file with:

sphinx-build -b gettext . output

If I create a French po file from this, I can generate a French manual page from the en.rst file with:

sphinx-build -b man -D language=fr . output

[Nick-Hall]

There's also an update_doc.py file

To build the API documentation we use:

python update_doc.py --build

[stevenyoungs]

If the gramps.1.in files are generated, should they even be in the source tree? Ideally the workflow is then enhanced to build the gramps.1.in files. That's not for this PR though.

For this PR is it sufficient for you if I revert the changes to the gramps.1.in files?
When running python update_man.py --man what do you set SOURCEDIR and DESTDIR to? I get the error

usage: sphinx-build [OPTIONS] SOURCEDIR OUTPUTDIR [FILENAMES...]
sphinx-build: error: the following arguments are required: SOURCE_DIR, OUTPUT_DIR

I tried setting two env variables (with both variants of both names) but it did not help.
Cutting a long story short, if I do revert the changes to gramps.1.in I'll still need some help to rebuild them.

[jralls]

With a couple of small tweaks, I can generate the manual pages with…

@Nick-Hall OK, so that couldreplace the current build_man in setup.py. But...

With a few tweaks to en.rst I can generate a gramps.1.in file to be essentially the same as we are using now.
…
Experimenting a little I can generate a pot file
…
If I create a French po file from this, I can generate a French manual page from the en.rst file

Must they be a separate potfile and po-files, or can they be incorporated into the existing gramps.pot and po files? Regardless, that sounds like a change for 6.0.x since we're already into string freeze for 6.0. For 6.0 ISTM we're stuck with the existing gramps.1.in and setup.py's build_man, so we should merge the URL fixes in this PR.