From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jorge Godoy To: Eric Bischoff Cc: docbook-tools-discuss@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: Evolution of the DocBook tools Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 06:36:00 -0000 Message-id: <20000224105322.M24290@conectiva.com.br> References: <951281049.19725.ezmlm@sourceware.cygnus.com> <20000223085415.B611@ciberia.es> <38B3ABD6.71623993@cybercable.tm.fr> <38B40C05.FD198BAE@cybercable.tm.fr> <38B51C42.41B72A89@cybercable.tm.fr> X-SW-Source: 2000/msg00090.html On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 12:55:46PM +0100, Eric Bischoff wrote: Sorry! I forgot one thing: > > Look at "conectiva.cat" in the file I've sent you in the other > > message. It solves lots of problems and you don't need to merge an > > entire new catalog each time a new release is done. And, besides, you > > use the stylesheets catalog with all it's relative paths. It works > > wonderfully. > > You're mentioning another problem that I hadn't been speaking about : > merging catalogs implied that the other packages couldn't be in their > own directory, because the relative paths became relative to the merged > CATALOG file. There are two > ways to work around this (if not more) : > - accept not to merge catalogs in the db2* scripts (my solution) > - use the CATALOG keyword (your solution) If we don't accept merging catalogs, we ar going to allow users specifying catalog at the command line. He (the user) will have to say: - Where's jade/openjade stylesheets - Where's DocBook stylesheets - Where is/are his customized stylesheets. The command typed would be huge and subject to typing errors. I don't think it's a good approach... -- Godoy. Setor de Publicações Publishment Division Conectiva S.A.