From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jochem Huhmann To: docbook-tools-discuss@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: Re : db2??????? vs. SGMLTools2 vs. what else? Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 06:36:00 -0000 Message-id: References: <951281049.19725.ezmlm@sourceware.cygnus.com> <20000223085415.B611@ciberia.es> <38B3ABD6.71623993@cybercable.tm.fr> <38B40C05.FD198BAE@cybercable.tm.fr> <38B5015A.1A426E34@cybercable.tm.fr> X-SW-Source: 2000/msg00094.html * Eric Bischoff wrote: > Jochem Huhmann wrote: > > > > * Eric Bischoff 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 ? Sorry, no, I don't talk only about Debian. The tools (and file locations and such) needed to process SGML with jade and DSSSL are packaged in a different way in every single Linux-Distribution and sometimes there are also additional packages, which do this in one more different way. One should see that "docbook-tools" actually are "tools for processing SGML with jade", not "tools for processing DocBook". The tool-chain for processing a DocBook file may also include eg. Emacs with PSGML (for editing) and also PSGML needs to know where to find the catalog. If someone wants to use or to write other tools for processing DocBook he also needs some basics to rely on. So you *can't* wrap up everything and put it in one package again and again. If there where some common standard for file locations and catalog handling, the user could plug in whatever he needs or wants and every application could rely on finding things. I would like to see a situation where a software developer just can use a Makefile to build HTML and Postscript versions of his software documentation on a Linux system, *without* to care about the wrappers and tools and file locations found on a random distribution. We will never get there if Caldera and Redhat and SuSE and Debian come with their own wrappers and file-locations. I see that you are trying to get this mess cleared up and that's great, but IMHO this has to be discussed with authors of other wrappers and maintainers of packages. I'm using Redhat systems since 4.0, Caldera since that "Caldera Network Desktop 1.0", Debian since 2.0 and SuSE since "S.u.S.E. 11/94"; if getting software compiled would have been such a mess as getting a SGML file rendered to a readable or printable format I never would have bothered with Linux. > > 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 > > 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. Looks like you (or someone else) should write up a proposal, post it to lsb-discuss@lists.linuxbase.org and cc it to all the maintainers and packagers and related lists (like sgml-tools@via.ecp.fr)... I'm quite sure that a lot of people being busy with regard to DocBook on Linux (or FreeBSD, which is quite comfortable with DocBook, the FreeBSD-Handbook is DocBook) are not reading this list. Jochem -- Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!