I use auto-faq; when I had to choose, I picked the more powerful one (arrh
arrh arrh!) But I'm not sure what advantages auto-faq has over post-faq;
auto-faq lets you keep the body of the FAQ in a plain file, with no headers,
and generates all the needed headers from its configuration file. If the FAQ
is maintained using version control programs such as RCS or SCCS, auto-faq
can figure out the version number and last-modified-date and generate the
appropriate secondary headers. One user at a site, the "news guru," can set
up the configuration and the crontab to do the postings for any number of
FAQ maintainers there, who would keep their FAQ files in a directory that
can be read by auto-faq and wouldn't have to worry about the technical
details of posting.
In my case, I post FAQs for a number of friends all over the world, who
email me their files when updated; I strip the mail headers and prepend the
version and last-modified headers, so I don't have to learn RCS or SCCS
(right away :).
Auto-faq is eminently hackable. If you don't want to get into the main code,
you can define local functions in a separate file which auto-faq will load
upon execution. I'm about to tweak it so that it emails the FAQ owners (and
myself) a little confirmation notice whenever their FAQ is posted, and a few
folks have requested I email them a FAQ for a group not available at their
site, so I might automate that too.
>Both packages are available by email or FTP from the rtfm server as
>/pub/post_faq/post_faq.shar and /pub/faq/auto-faq32.part[1-3].gz. For
>more information, see the submission guidelines for news.answers.
>
>- Pam Greene
-- pjkappes@mailbox.syr.edu (Peter Kappesser)
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved