Re: Re : db2??????? vs. SGMLTools2 vs. what else?

[Eric Bischoff <ebisch at cybercable dot tm dot fr>]

Jochem Huhmann wrote:
> 
> * Eric Bischoff <ebisch@cybercable.tm.fr> wrote:
> > (seeking a greater compatibility
> > with Debian could also be a concern, BTW).
> 
> OK. What I meant is: There is some software like jade and the
> stylesheets. There are a lot of wrappers around these - Marks tools, the
> scripts from SuSE, the KDE-stuff and SGMLTools (for the most part a
> wrapper written in python).

Hmmm, looks like a big mixture. Which KDE-stuff is in ???
I think we should not copy their packaging, but at least adopt the same
directory names if possible.
What is the result of a 'ls /usr/lib/sgml' on a debian ?

> The software should be packaged like any
> other software, I don't see the point in putting it together with
> scripts and such.

That's my opinion as well, it is the reason why I have been putting
Mark's scripts (reworked by myself) in a new separate package named
"docbook-utils". Mark could not do this before because the
install-catalog script needed to be called very early, and this was
because the scripts could only work with a merged CATALOG... Now it is
an option to merge the catalogs, and therefore there's no more need to
package the scripts along with some other package, and the dependancies
are clean. (BTW, a strange consequence of the former situation was that
the uninstalling failed at the end, because install-catalog was removed
while it was still necessary for the uninstallation. Snake eating its
tail...)

> This creates conflicts with other packages. Try to
> install the SGMLTools (which come with the stylesheets and jade)
> together with other packages, that also install the stylesheets. This is
> a mess and every single Linux-Distribution comes up with it's own
> mess. This is not part of a solution but a part of the problem.

SGML-Tools are not any longer maintained, so I don't want to rely on
that. I'm sure Cees De Groot would understand perfectly.

> There should be some "standard" for directory layout, location of the
> catalog etc. Wrappers should build upon this common standard. So you
> could use whichever you want.

That's what I did for Caldera, and I'll keep it unless Debian has
different names with a clean directory layout too. It would be stupid to
have only two-letter differences... ;-)

> Actually I believe this is an issue for the LSB or FHS-Projects. Caldera
> is also member of LSB and is responsible for the reference
> implementation, or am I wrong?

You're perfectly true.

> Maybe you should ask Ralf Flaxa
> <rf@lst.de> who is assigned as technical lead for this task. Or ask on

He's currently in the US and quite busy, but sure, I'll speak with him
about that when I'll meet him again.

> one of the LSB-lists.

Yup.

-- 
Eric Bischoff  -  Documentation and Localization
Caldera (Deutschland) GmbH - Linux for Business!
Tel: +49 9131 7192 300 -  Fax: +49 9131 7192 399
http://www.caldera.de/