ANNOUNCEMENT: New docbook-tools packages

ANNOUNCEMENT: New docbook-tools packages

[Eric Bischoff]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3200 bytes --]

Hi all,

The DocBook-tools have been repackaged at

	ftp://sourceware.cygnus.com/docbook-tools/new-trials

They have been becoming more and more stable since Mark's
latest announcement. Hopefully we will move them to
"docware" directory soon.

1) Changes
----------

Changes to the external packages:
- Stylesheets: 1.44 => 1.54
- DTD: was 3.0 and 3.1, added DocBook 4.0 and 4.1,
  one can install only the one(s) he/shee needs
- jadetex: 2.7 => 2.20

Changes to the docbook-utils:
- modularity: separated
  o the input format drivers
  o the main program
  o the output format drivers
  (one could even use another frontend than DocBook!)
- support for man and info output
- auto-detection of the needed catalogs
- stabilized autoconf/automake support initiated by Mark
(thanks a million
  times). As a side effect, the doc (man and info pages)
builds with a
  simple "make -f Makefile.cvs" at tarball generation time
- docbook-utils.dsl is now used as the default style sheet.
  It's like cygnus-common.dsl in the old docbook-tools, but
with the
  following advantages:
  o you can use your own customized stylesheet if you don't
like this one
  o your stylesheet does not need rely on HTML and PRINT
entities
  o you can use Norm's stuff "out of the box"
- new sgmldiff script
  (useful to see if a translation of a docbook file respects
the markup)

New package: perl-SGMLSpm 1.03ii

Every package has been made conformant to the LSB proposal
for SGML/XML

2) Kown problems
----------------

Jadetex 2.20 seems to require to update "hyperref" package
on old distros. I'm still investigating this with Sebastian
Rahtz' help. In the meantime, both jadetex 2.7 and jadetex
2.20 are provided.

Those new packages are only for i386 and ppc architectures
at the time being, and only for Linux RPM-based systems with
a RedHat-compatible directory tree structure. They rebuild
easily on other platforms (they auto-detect the directory
tree, they are linked statically, etc...), so please rebuild
them and send them to distributions maintainers if you have
the time to do that. For example, Caldera packages are
already available on Caldera's FTP mirrors.

The psgml binary package for i386 is a bit outdated. It
shouldn't change a lot of things. Any volunteer please
rebuild it on an intel machine with RedHat-compatible
directory tree.

3) Miscellaneous
----------------

Not done yet: Mark Johnson's proposal to support XML in
psgml
              all that is in the TODO list

If you would like to participate to the development of the
docbook-utils package, please subscribe to
docbook-utils@bazar.conectiva.com.br (there's another list
for the development of the DocBook-tools distribution).

-- 
 Éric Bischoff   -   mailto:ebisch@cybercable.tm.fr
 __________________________________________________
                                           \^o~_.
     .~.                           ______  /( __ )
     /V\         Toys story         \__  \/  (  V
   //   \\                            \__| (__=v
  /(     )\                        |\___/     )
    ^^-^^                           \_____(  )
     Tux                        Konqui     \__=v
 __________________________________________________

Re: docbook2* vs db2*

[Mark Galassi]

    David> Is there any reason why all of a sudden the tools are using
    David> docbook2* instead of db2*? Wouldn't it be *much* easier if
    David> it remained db2* so that people who have been using the DB
    David> Tools for a long time will understand how to use the new
    David> set of tools 'out of the box'?

    David> Did I miss a thread about this already?

Dude, you missed a thread in which I asked people if they would like
such a change, which had been suggested.  I'll privately mail you the
thread.

Re: docbook2* vs db2*

[Eric Bischoff]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1538 bytes --]

"David C. Mason" wrote:
> 
> Is there any reason why all of a sudden the tools are using docbook2*
> instead of db2*?

Yes:
- confusion and possible conflicts with IBM's DB2
- if you want a really short name, use "jw" (Jade Wrapper).
- if you want a name that is "speaking", use "docbook2*"
- if you really miss the old name, you can always wrap it in
your own shell script
- with Tab auto-completion, having an explicit name isn't
really a problem

jw foo.docbook == docbook2html foo.docbook
jw -b ps foo.docbook == docbook2ps foo.docbook
etc...

> Wouldn't it be *much* easier if it remained db2* so
> that people who have been using the DB Tools for a long time will
> understand how to use the new set of tools 'out of the box'?

Well, with such an explanation, it shouldn't be *too*
difficult to adapt ;-).

> Did I miss a thread about this already?

No, you didn't.

If there is really strong popular pressure for db2* names,
we can move back, but having both docbook2* and db2* would
be bloating /usr/bin, according to me.

-- 
 Éric Bischoff   -   mailto:ebisch@cybercable.tm.fr
 __________________________________________________
                                           \^o~_.
     .~.                           ______  /( __ )
     /V\         Toys story         \__  \/  (  V
   //   \\                            \__| (__=v
  /(     )\                        |\___/     )
    ^^-^^                           \_____(  )
     Tux                        Konqui     \__=v
 __________________________________________________

Re: docbook2* vs db2*

[Mark Galassi]

    David> Thanks - I have been traveling. By the way, here was my
    David> reply to the thread which I sent to Mark privately:

    David> I understand the database connection and the idea that you
    David> can alias, tab complete, or rename even... but I am
    David> thinking of the writer who, may not be very Linux/UNIX
    David> savvy who has finally learned DB Tools and now finds that
    David> db2html does nothing. Its a small learning curve yes - but
    David> it *is* usability.... and that concerns me as I am one of
    David> those people who have to answer that question over and over
    David> again.

I kind of agree with you, which is why I plan for it to be an
extremely slow phase-out of the old names.

I guess that as long as we find packages in remote places that still
directly invoke db2html we will continue to carry the old script
names.

I am now beginning to work on automake support for docbook, which
would make things a lot easier.

Re: docbook2* vs db2*

[Eric Bischoff]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1102 bytes --]

Mark Galassi wrote:
> 
>     David> Is there any reason why all of a sudden the tools are using
>     David> docbook2* instead of db2*? Wouldn't it be *much* easier if
>     David> it remained db2* so that people who have been using the DB
>     David> Tools for a long time will understand how to use the new
>     David> set of tools 'out of the box'?
> 
>     David> Did I miss a thread about this already?
> 
> Dude, you missed a thread in which I asked people if they would like
> such a change, which had been suggested.  I'll privately mail you the
> thread.

Oopss... So did I then ;-)

-- 
 Éric Bischoff   -   mailto:ebisch@cybercable.tm.fr
 __________________________________________________
                                           \^o~_.
     .~.                           ______  /( __ )
     /V\         Toys story         \__  \/  (  V
   //   \\                            \__| (__=v
  /(     )\                        |\___/     )
    ^^-^^                           \_____(  )
     Tux                        Konqui     \__=v
 __________________________________________________

docbook2* vs db2*

[David C. Mason]

Is there any reason why all of a sudden the tools are using docbook2*
instead of db2*? Wouldn't it be *much* easier if it remained db2* so
that people who have been using the DB Tools for a long time will
understand how to use the new set of tools 'out of the box'?

Did I miss a thread about this already?

Dave
-- 


David Mason
Red Hat Advanced Development Labs
dcm@redhat.com (919)547-0012 x248

Re: docbook2* vs db2*

[David C. Mason]

Mark Galassi <rosalia@galassi.org> writes:


> Dude, you missed a thread in which I asked people if they would like
> such a change, which had been suggested.  I'll privately mail you the
> thread.


Thanks - I have been traveling. By the way, here was my reply to the
thread which I sent to Mark privately:


I understand the database connection and the idea that you can alias,
tab complete, or rename even... but I am thinking of the writer who,
may not be very Linux/UNIX savvy who has finally learned DB Tools and
now finds that db2html does nothing. Its a small learning curve yes -
but it *is* usability.... and that concerns me as I am one of those
people who have to answer that question over and over again.

Oh, another thing. There have been some developers who insist on
having the docs build with the source... "what is db2html?" being the
questions asked most often.... these developers probably do not follow
DB Tools too closely and as long as their db2html works they will
expect everyone who downloads their sources to as well... another
source of problems.

Just some thoughts on it.


Dave

-- 


David Mason
Red Hat Advanced Development Labs
dcm@redhat.com (919)547-0012 x248

Re: docbook2* vs db2*

[Eric Bischoff]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2379 bytes --]

"David C. Mason" wrote:
> 
> Mark Galassi <rosalia@galassi.org> writes:
> 
> > Dude, you missed a thread in which I asked people if they would like
> > such a change, which had been suggested.  I'll privately mail you the
> > thread.
> 
> Thanks - I have been traveling. By the way, here was my reply to the
> thread which I sent to Mark privately:
> 
> I understand the database connection and the idea that you can alias,
> tab complete, or rename even... but I am thinking of the writer who,
> may not be very Linux/UNIX savvy who has finally learned DB Tools and
> now finds that db2html does nothing. Its a small learning curve yes -
> but it *is* usability.... and that concerns me as I am one of those
> people who have to answer that question over and over again.

This kind of guy would be more at ease with an explict name,
probably.

And to be very honest, the DocBook-tools aren't really for a
guy allergical to the command line yet. We need an IDE.

> Oh, another thing. There have been some developers who insist on
> having the docs build with the source... "what is db2html?" being the

I added man pages to the DocBook utils. Try "man
docbook2html". BTW we could put them online, technically
they are docbook refentries, so we could generate HTML
easily out of them.

Regarding the crash-course, I had the same idea, but it's a
*bad* idea to bundle it into the docbook-utils package. Just
because the crash-course explains you how to get this
package and install it. So if you bundle it, it becomes a
chicken-and-egg problem.

> questions asked most often.... these developers probably do not follow
> DB Tools too closely and as long as their db2html works they will
> expect everyone who downloads their sources to as well... another
> source of problems.

A good entry for a FAQ, according to me.

> Just some thoughts on it.

You're perfectly right.

-- 
 Éric Bischoff   -   mailto:ebisch@cybercable.tm.fr
 __________________________________________________
                                           \^o~_.
     .~.                           ______  /( __ )
     /V\         Toys story         \__  \/  (  V
   //   \\                            \__| (__=v
  /(     )\                        |\___/     )
    ^^-^^                           \_____(  )
     Tux                        Konqui     \__=v
 __________________________________________________

RE: docbook2* vs db2*

[Gregory Leblanc]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Galassi [ mailto:rosalia@galassi.org ]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2000 3:34 PM
> To: docbook-tools-discuss@sourceware.cygnus.com
> Subject: Re: docbook2* vs db2*
> 
>     David> Thanks - I have been traveling. By the way, here was my
>     David> reply to the thread which I sent to Mark privately:
> 
>     David> I understand the database connection and the idea that you
>     David> can alias, tab complete, or rename even... but I am
>     David> thinking of the writer who, may not be very Linux/UNIX
>     David> savvy who has finally learned DB Tools and now finds that
>     David> db2html does nothing. Its a small learning curve yes - but
>     David> it *is* usability.... and that concerns me as I am one of
>     David> those people who have to answer that question over and over
>     David> again.
> 
> I kind of agree with you, which is why I plan for it to be an
> extremely slow phase-out of the old names.
> 
> I guess that as long as we find packages in remote places that still
> directly invoke db2html we will continue to carry the old script
> names.

I understand this argument, but I figure it's not worthwhile, especially
after the total screw up that got Cees into trouble with "SGML tools".  I'd
rather make it as un-ambiguous as possible, and avoid things like trying to
use it to convert a db2 table into html (or using sgmltools to convert
MathML into HTML).