From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Guy Brand <guybrand@chimie.u-strasbg.fr>
To: docbook-tools-discuss@sourceware.cygnus.com
Cc: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@pasteur.fr>, Adam Di Carlo <adam@onshore.com>
Subject: Re: Docbook tools
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 01:27:00 -0000
Message-id: <19990906102649.J4292@chimie.u-strasbg.fr>
References: <99090522193703.00542@r12m10.cybercable.tm.fr>
X-SW-Source: 1999/msg00051.html

Le 05 Septembre vers 21:30, Eric Bischoff écrivait :

> Hello everybody,

  Salut Eric wie gets :))

> I was planning to package all
> this stuff all together - exactly what you have done at Cygnus.

  Yes, thanks to Mark Galassi who perfectly reached his aim : providing
  Linux RedHat (alike) users with a simple "kit" to produce DocBook. 
  I was about to package all the stuff for Debian, when Adam Di Carlo
  informed me that he already did the job. Seems that we have enough 
  tools to produce docbookies. What lacks is documentation on 
  producing docbooks and tweaking them to fit "personnal" needs.

> interest for other users, such as a crash course to DocBook that people report
> to be of quality. Have a look at
> http://www.kde.org/documentation/docbook/index.html .

  This course does not contain more information one could already find
  in Mark Galassi's "Getting going with DocBook" or FreeBSD's quick doc
  on using DocBook in the FreeBSD documentation project. We still need a
  good guide, complete and with many examples, not just the basic one of
  course. I'm not criticizing what you did at KDE, and as we know each
  other, Eric, I think you understand perfectly what I mean. Obvisouly a
  DocBook-HOWTO is needed in the LDP.

> There is one main exception, Norman Walsh's stylesheet. I
> may be wrong, but it looks like you have packaged version 0.10, whereas version
> 1.42 is the current one. Is there a reason for that ?

  Mark will explains himself :)

> - Why not putting everything in a single tarball / RPM / SRPM ? There could be
> a single ./configure / make / make install sequence.

  The RPMs are available with SPECs too, so you can rebuild them from
  scratch if needed. Also, the "docware kit" (Mark can I still call it
  that way ?) does include several products (jade, jadetex, etc.) which
  are separated projects... one just need them to have the whole
  stuff working, but why would one want such a big package ? Under
  Debian you just need the cygnus-stylesheets, jade, jadetex, docbook,
  etc are available as separated packages too. Don't forget there're many
  ways of using/producing valid DocBook docs :) It's true that under
  RedHat one need to have Mark's work to produce DocBook. I
  recently switched to a Debian box where several approaches are
  equivalently productive.

> for putting both the 3.0 version and the 3.1 version of the DocBook DTD in
> the RPM archive? It makes the file bigger.

  Modularity ? :)
  Probably the same answer as "why would one produce HTML docs conform
  to DTD version 3.2 and 4.0 ?"

> PS I will forward the reply(ies) to the KDE DocBook team

  I was wondering last week why there wasn't a generic DocBook mailing
  list where specific questions to the DTD, usage, etc could be sent.
  Of course there's still comp.text.sgml :)

  BuG

  PS : copies to S.Bortzmeyer and A. di Carlo