[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: merging w3c-dtd-xhtml and w3c-sml-lib: ten days to object or find issues


On 20/04/12 01:38, Joey Hess wrote:
Nicholas Bamber wrote:
Hmm well the old vesion of w3c-dtd-xhtml provided w3c-dtd-xhtml. This
one does not. Still I see it showing up as a Provides in PTS. I am not
sure if something needs to be done in some mysterious Debian server to
resolve that but the 1.2-2 version of w3c-sgml-lib does NOT have a
Provides clause.

w3c-sgml-lib 1.2-1 does provide/conflict/replace w3c-dtd-xhtml.

Yes and it is not present in 1.2-2. Nor does w3c-sgml-lib exist in stable. So actually if we just let it go to testing everything would be fine. ;-) Seriously I will not do that unless you are happy with it and there are still backports and derivatives to worry about. Please could you run this test. Uninstall w3c-dtd-xhtml and all its dependents and reinstall wdg-html-validator with the latest chain. Does that have any issues for you?

Please could you send me one or more HTML files that you would accept
as an objective test as whether wdg-html-validator is working and what
you expect as an output.

See end of transcript in my previous mail.

Sorry I was in too much of a hurry to see that before. Thanks.

	Also what happens when you force through the installation of
w3c-dtd-xhtml version 1.2-2 and w3c-sgml-lib? Does
wdg-html-validator behave itself for you then?

update-xmlcatalog: error: entity already registered with a different value
  Entity   : [delegatePublic publicIdStartString="-//W3C//ENTITIES Latin 1 for XHTML//EN"]
  Old value: [catalog="file:///etc/xml/w3c-sgml-lib.xml"]
  New value: [catalog="file:///etc/xml/w3c-dtd-xhtml.xml"]
dpkg: error processing w3c-dtd-xhtml (--install):

And in this state, no, validate does not work.

For me the nightmare scenario is that I just have to give up and make w3c-sgml-lib and w3c-dtd-xhtml have mutual conflicts clauses because they define the same entities. I think the Debian policy implies that in that case both packages and all depeendencies should move to "extra" priority which I think would be dreadful.

Reply to: