packaging policy questions re new standard

[Mark Johnson <mark@phy.duke.edu>]

--text follows this line--
I'll be cranking out a number of docbook xml packages in the next week
or so and have some questions re implementation of the proposed lsb
naming scheme. (The docbook-xsl-stylesheets package I made uses only
current policy.)

1. Are we going to use the recommended naming scheme for directories
   and packages?

-- versioned directories (or versioned symlinks)?

e.g. 

/usr/share/sgml/docbook/ 

          docbook-dtd41-xml/
          docbook-style129-xsl/
         
-- versioned package names? 

e.g

 docbook-dtd41-xml_1.0-3_all.deb
 docbook-style129-1.0-1_all.deb
	 

I see good reasons for wanting multiple versions of the xsl
stylesheets installed. For example, V124 works fine with XT and Saxon,
but V1.29 doesn't work with XT. Users should be able to use XT if they
like - even if it means using older versions of the stylesheets.

Versioning the directories would eliminate overwrites, and versioning
the package names would allow multiple versions. 

However, I'm not too clear how/if upgrades would work. Would we use a
"docbook-style-xsl" meta-package that points to the latest version and
has no conflicts between versions (plus an alternatives entry)?

Lemme know what you think. I'm puzzled.

Thanks,
Mark

BTW, I'm putting my packages under cvs. Instructions for anonymous
access are readable via the viewcvs interface:

 http://ed.phy.duke.edu/cvs/index.cgi/?cvsroot=debian