Re: Saxon/Xalan extensions written by Norman Walsh for docbook-xsl
- To: Daniel Leidert <daniel.leidert.spam@gmx.net>
- Cc: debian-java@lists.debian.org, Michael Koch <konqueror@gmx.de>
- Subject: Re: Saxon/Xalan extensions written by Norman Walsh for docbook-xsl
- From: "Michael(tm) Smith" <smith@sideshowbarker.net>
- Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 18:55:59 +0900
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20070301090812.GA32244@sideshowbarker>
- In-reply-to: <1172705290.8345.32.camel@localhost>
- References: <1172566103.21566.69.camel@localhost> <es0sb2$ooe$1@sea.gmane.org> <1172568798.21566.75.camel@localhost> <20070227102016.11AC9141@kakmonster.int.dactylis.com> <1172580488.21566.109.camel@localhost> <20070227142814.GA21190@mail.konqueror.de> <1172705290.8345.32.camel@localhost>
Daniel Leidert <daniel.leidert.spam@gmx.net>, 2007-03-01 00:28 +0100:
> Am Dienstag, den 27.02.2007, 15:28 +0100 schrieb Michael Koch:
> > On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 01:48:08PM +0100, Daniel Leidert wrote:
>
> [docbook-xsl-java package for the Saxon/Xalan extensions?]
> > > In every case, I would appreciate your help. But if Michael Smith really
> > > offers splitting the source, I would prefer this way and put it into
> > > pkg-java (it's simple - the java guys probably have more knowledge about
> > > Java, saxon and xalan than I have - I have just some basic Java
> > > knowledge).
> >
> > This makes only real sense when the java part has no dependency on a
> > special version of the non-java docbook-xsl.
>
> That's IMO the case (Michael, your opinion?).
Sorry, but I don't know what's meant by "special version". But to
describe the relationship between the packages, a user who has the
docbook-xsl-java package installed also needs the standard
docbook-xsl package installed -- not any special version of the
package -- in order to make use of the extensions. Because the
extensions are called by stylesheets -- if a user enables certain
optional parameters.
Which reminds me: I would think that the docbook-xsl package
will need to have a requirement for docbook-xsl-java -- because
there is no way to tell at install time if a user plans to use the
optional extensions; the option to use the extensions is a user
run-time option.
> It's more like docbook-xsl depending on the extensions in
> special parts (e.g. the callouts-list handling).
Right.
> The code-base of the extensions also doesn't change very
> often: about 3 commits in 9 years (from what I can see).
Well, it's a little more often than that, actually. We actually
made a bug fix to them within the last two weeks. But it is true
that they don't change very often: would need only a couple of a
releases a year at most.
--Mike
--
Michael(tm) Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike/
Reply to: