-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 182
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Fix scaling of small images, fix typos, clarify IPsec s2s #78
Fix scaling of small images, fix typos, clarify IPsec s2s #78
Conversation
source/manual/how-tos/ips-feodo.rst
Outdated
@@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ To do so: select Enabled after each one. | |||
|
|||
To download the rule sets press **Download & Update Rules**. | |||
|
|||
.. image:: images/downloadbtn.png | |||
.. scale:: images/downloadbtn.png |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
image -> scale, not width -> scale like the other two?
also :scale: was changed to :width: in earlier commits because it squashes larger images
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
hehe, ok. maybe there is a more portable setting than cranking every :scale: and :width: to 100% ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That could be the case, indeed. I was following @jschellevis ' instructions here.
For small images that don't need resizing, we might be able to leave out both instructions.
From the Sphinx manual:
In other words: it can be left out. I discussed this with @jschellevis and he agreed on doing so. |
nice, thanks |
@MichaelDeciso thanks! |
This manual leaves IPsec Road Warrior alone, since there is already a PR open for that.
It does touch IPsec S2S, which is not covered by #72.