From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: esr@thyrsus.com To: Mark Galassi Cc: Docbook Tools discussion list Subject: Re: new tools coming and a couple of renamings Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 06:36:00 -0000 Message-id: <20000721032257.F14571@thyrsus.com> References: <76g0p4w09h.fsf@odie.lanl.gov> X-SW-Source: 2000/msg00290.html Mark Galassi : > So my proposal is to deprecate the db2* names in favor of the > docbook2* names. This phase-out would be extremely slow, since > thousands of build procedures use the db2* scripts now. > > Anyone wanna contribute an opinion? What? You want to make me type six whole extra letters for *each* *name*? :-) Seriously, I would probably be firm that it ain't worth the hassle if it weren't for the fact that that "db" prefix looks like it has something to do with databases. Removing ambiguity is good. On the other hand, it's proper Unix tradition to have short names for a reason -- it saves typing for hapless fumble-fingers like me. So I'm just a touch on the negative side of neutral on this one. We'd say "-0" in Python-land. -- Eric S. Raymond The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant -- John Stuart Mill, "On Liberty", 1859 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bill Brooks To: docbook-tools-discuss@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: new tools coming and a couple of renamings Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 06:36:00 -0000 Message-id: References: <76g0p4w09h.fsf@odie.lanl.gov> X-SW-Source: 2000/msg00295.html On 20 Jul 2000, Mark Galassi wrote: > > Dear Docbook Tools enthusiasts, > > After a long period of "no innovation", Eric Bischoff and I (Eric did > most of the work) are about to put out an up-to-date, orthogonal and > cleaned-up release of the docbook tools. Is it going to be able to compile from source on something other than RedHat linux or close cousins? Bill From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gregory Leblanc To: Docbook Tools discussion list Subject: RE: new tools coming and a couple of renamings Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 06:36:00 -0000 Message-id: <025836EFF856D411A6660090272811E61D04EF@EMAIL> X-SW-Source: 2000/msg00289.html > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Galassi [ mailto:rosalia@galassi.org ] > Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2000 9:55 PM > To: Docbook Tools discussion list > Subject: new tools coming and a couple of renamings > > Dear Docbook Tools enthusiasts, > > After a long period of "no innovation", Eric Bischoff and I (Eric did > most of the work) are about to put out an up-to-date, orthogonal and > cleaned-up release of the docbook tools. > > More details will come out soon, but meanwhile I need to poll all of > you on one issue: > > Some people have been asking us to please change the names db2html, > db2ps, ... into docbook2html, docbook2ps, .... > > I like the idea for the following reasons: > > 1. The db2* names were not really thought out: they were quick handy > scripts at Cygnus. > > 2. The letters "db" come up in "debug", "database", "docbook", and who > knows what else. "db2html" is particularly dangerous. > > 3. I'm not usually impressed with abbreviations. They make things > hard to remember and don't save that much time. > > So my proposal is to deprecate the db2* names in favor of the > docbook2* names. This phase-out would be extremely slow, since > thousands of build procedures use the db2* scripts now. > > Anyone wanna contribute an opinion? I'm all for the name change, as I always think "IBM's premier database (DB2) converted into html" rather than "DocBook converted into html". And if people want to keep the old names, they just edit their .profile and add some aliases. Later, Grego From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Lee Green To: esr@thyrsus.com, Mark Galassi Cc: Docbook Tools discussion list Subject: Re: new tools coming and a couple of renamings Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 06:36:00 -0000 Message-id: <00072106383601.17361@ehome.inhouse> References: <76g0p4w09h.fsf@odie.lanl.gov> <20000721032257.F14571@thyrsus.com> X-SW-Source: 2000/msg00294.html On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, esr@thyrsus.com wrote: > Mark Galassi : > > So my proposal is to deprecate the db2* names in favor of the > > docbook2* names. This phase-out would be extremely slow, since > > thousands of build procedures use the db2* scripts now. > > something to do with databases. Removing ambiguity is good. On the > other hand, it's proper Unix tradition to have short names for a > reason -- it saves typing for hapless fumble-fingers like me. 'db' is too much like a database name. 'docbook' is too long. How about "docb"? as in, "docb2html" etc.? Yeah, it's just 3 characters shorter, but it appears to be the shortest unambiguous name... clearly says the command has something to do with docs, and the b is clue enough that it's dealing with docbook. Alternately, "doc2html" etc... hmm... bit ambigous there. Might make me think it's a generic x-format doc to html translater.... -- Eric Lee Green There is No Conspiracy eric@badtux.org http://www.badtux.org From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Norman Walsh To: Docbook Tools discussion list Subject: Re: new tools coming and a couple of renamings Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 06:36:00 -0000 Message-id: <87ittzn4ix.fsf@nwalsh.com> References: <76g0p4w09h.fsf@odie.lanl.gov> X-SW-Source: 2000/msg00292.html / Mark Galassi was heard to say: | Anyone wanna contribute an opinion? +1 Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh | The shoe that fits one person pinches http://nwalsh.com/ | another; there is no recipe for living | that suits all cases.--Jung From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Bischoff To: Docbook Tools discussion list Subject: Re: new tools coming and a couple of renamings Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 06:36:00 -0000 Message-id: <3992FCAE.638C81A0@cybercable.tm.fr> References: <76zonbe3ji.fsf@odie.lanl.gov> X-SW-Source: 2000/msg00320.html Mark Galassi wrote: > > Bill> Is it going to be able to compile from source on something > Bill> other than RedHat linux or close cousins? > > Indeed it will compile on all sorts of things. Thanks to Eric's > cleanup I feel like it's actually worth the effort. > > Our intention is to produce tarballs, and I got your mail as I was > adding configure.in/Makefile.am files to the docbook-utils package (a > process known as "autobarfing a package"). Yes, it does compile on a wide range of platforms. It even installs and works ;-). What *does not work* is to install the binary RPM on a non-RedHat cousin. But if you rebuild the source package on a given platform: # rpm -ba SPECS/twiddledoodle.spec then the generated binary RPM will normally work on that platform. Don't forget to send the source RPM to the maintainers of this distribution and to tell them that it worked out - normally they love your doing their work ;-). Same for Debian systems, if you repackage the tarball, thanks to Mark's efforts in the automake/autoconf area. -- Éric Bischoff - mailto:ebisch@cybercable.tm.fr __________________________________________________ \^o~_. .~. ______ /( __ ) /V\ Toys story \__ \/ ( V // \\ \__| (__=v /( )\ |\___/ ) ^^-^^ \_____( ) Tux Konqui \__=v __________________________________________________ From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jorge Godoy To: esr@thyrsus.com Cc: Mark Galassi , Docbook Tools discussion list Subject: Re: new tools coming and a couple of renamings Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 06:36:00 -0000 Message-id: References: <76g0p4w09h.fsf@odie.lanl.gov> <20000721032257.F14571@thyrsus.com> X-SW-Source: 2000/msg00293.html >>>>> "esr" == esr writes: esr> Seriously, I would probably be firm that it ain't worth the esr> hassle if it weren't for the fact that that "db" prefix looks esr> like it has something to do with databases. Removing esr> ambiguity is good. On the other hand, it's proper Unix esr> tradition to have short names for a reason -- it saves typing esr> for hapless fumble-fingers like me. C'mon Eric! You can make aliases for these commands. It will only cost you extra typing once. :-) Unix is wonderful in it's resources. Let's not just worry with long names if it can be solved with extra aliases. Another ambiguity that was solved by choosing this name is the association with IBM's DB2. See you, -- Godoy. Departamento de Publicações Conectiva S.A. Publishing Department Conectiva Inc. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Galassi To: Docbook Tools discussion list Subject: Re: new tools coming and a couple of renamings Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 06:36:00 -0000 Message-id: <76zonbe3ji.fsf@odie.lanl.gov> References: X-SW-Source: 2000/msg00296.html Bill> Is it going to be able to compile from source on something Bill> other than RedHat linux or close cousins? Indeed it will compile on all sorts of things. Thanks to Eric's cleanup I feel like it's actually worth the effort. Our intention is to produce tarballs, and I got your mail as I was adding configure.in/Makefile.am files to the docbook-utils package (a process known as "autobarfing a package"). From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sylvan Ravinet To: esr@thyrsus.com Cc: Mark Galassi , Docbook Tools discussion list Subject: Re: new tools coming and a couple of renamings Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 06:36:00 -0000 Message-id: References: <20000721032257.F14571@thyrsus.com> X-SW-Source: 2000/msg00291.html Hi folks, On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 esr@thyrsus.com wrote: > something to do with databases. Removing ambiguity is good. On the > other hand, it's proper Unix tradition to have short names for a > reason -- it saves typing for hapless fumble-fingers like me. bash and tab-completion work well with that kind of pb, imho. So long or short names, that's all the same for me. +1 Eagerly waiting fo this new release, -Sylvan -- Do, or do not. There's no try. -Yoda Sylvan Ravinet: http://www.ravinet.com/sylvan/contact From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Galassi To: Docbook Tools discussion list Subject: new tools coming and a couple of renamings Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 06:36:00 -0000 Message-id: <76g0p4w09h.fsf@odie.lanl.gov> X-SW-Source: 2000/msg00288.html Dear Docbook Tools enthusiasts, After a long period of "no innovation", Eric Bischoff and I (Eric did most of the work) are about to put out an up-to-date, orthogonal and cleaned-up release of the docbook tools. More details will come out soon, but meanwhile I need to poll all of you on one issue: Some people have been asking us to please change the names db2html, db2ps, ... into docbook2html, docbook2ps, .... I like the idea for the following reasons: 1. The db2* names were not really thought out: they were quick handy scripts at Cygnus. 2. The letters "db" come up in "debug", "database", "docbook", and who knows what else. "db2html" is particularly dangerous. 3. I'm not usually impressed with abbreviations. They make things hard to remember and don't save that much time. So my proposal is to deprecate the db2* names in favor of the docbook2* names. This phase-out would be extremely slow, since thousands of build procedures use the db2* scripts now. Anyone wanna contribute an opinion? From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sylvan Ravinet To: esr@thyrsus.com Cc: Mark Galassi , Docbook Tools discussion list Subject: Re: new tools coming and a couple of renamings Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 00:08:00 -0000 Message-ID: References: <20000721032257.F14571@thyrsus.com> X-SW-Source: 2000-q3/msg00089.html Message-ID: <20000721000800.jwIRIetfkoqJvg-SZ3ZjGnXsEmzbZCs677gdQD3inTk@z> Hi folks, On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 esr@thyrsus.com wrote: > something to do with databases. Removing ambiguity is good. On the > other hand, it's proper Unix tradition to have short names for a > reason -- it saves typing for hapless fumble-fingers like me. bash and tab-completion work well with that kind of pb, imho. So long or short names, that's all the same for me. +1 Eagerly waiting fo this new release, -Sylvan -- Do, or do not. There's no try. -Yoda Sylvan Ravinet: http://www.ravinet.com/sylvan/contact