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

Re: packaging policy questions re new standard



Mark Johnson <mark@phy.duke.edu> writes:

> > I have 
> > 
> >   dtd/docbook-xml/
> >                   3.1.7
> >                   4.1.7
> > 
> > I think I also need to add:
> > 
> >   dtd/docbook-xml/
> >                   3.1    -symlink-> 3.1.7
> >                   3      -symlink-> 3.1.7
> >                   4.1    -symlink-> 4.1.7
> >                   4      -symlink-> 4.1.7
> > 
> > Is that accurate?  Mark, would that help for your docbook derivitives?
> 
> 
> You're talking about the usr/lib stuff, right? 

Yes, but something similar would apply to usr/share also.

> Either way will work for me-though there's something a little more
> elegant about
> 
> ../slides/
>            1.0/
>            1.1/
> Than 
> 
> ../slides-1.0/
> ../slides-1.1/
> 
> I can make either work. The top one will make the paths easier to deal
> with and allows for more consistency across the board: it would seem a
> little odd to give the derivative-based directories
> names+version-numbers, but not to do so with docbook-xml. Inconsistent,
> you know. Do you agree? 

Yes, I agree.  I'm willing to go either way.  You seem to prefer the
deeper directory, and that's ok with me -- just lets not make it *too*
deep.

> But if we version the top-level docbook-xml dir (e.g.
> xml-docbook-4.1.2), things get complicated very quickly. In fact,
> upgrades to docbook-xml might then hose everything underneath it. Can
> you see my point? 

No, not yet :)

> BTW, these things are not at all obvious unless
> you're actually packaging the stuff. 
> 
> Believe it or not, my primary goal here is to keep the structure simple,
> second would be workable and upgradeable, third: consistent (hence
> predictable), fourth: elegant/clean (more of a luxury, really).
>  
> I'm still not clear as to the layout you'd like to see under
> usr/share/sgml/docbook. Are you OK with the new tree looking like:
> 
> ../share/sgml/docbook/
>                                 4.1.2/
>                                 3.1.7/
>                                 slides/ etc.. 
> 
> Gimme some feedback. 

That seems ok to me... Add the '4.1' and '4' symlinks to the latest
stable DTD versions.  Just to clarify, the symlinks are only for the
DTD/entity stuff (things referenced normally via a formal public
identifier (FPI)).

I'd like to see a more complete picture, esp including docbook DTD and
docbook-xml and your derivatives and how they play out, including
symlinks.

-- 
.....Adam Di Carlo....adam@onShore.com.....<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>



Reply to: