[SUMMARY] Divergance with LSB spec
Mark and I went over the LSB spec page by page, reviewing where we
disagree with the spec
<URL:http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/gLSB/gLSB/lsbsgml.html>.
Based on our examination, the only concrete problem we have at this
time is with R002. Norm has pointed out a potential problem with R003
as well.
Once I have consensus on this and Mark's new /usr/share/sgml layout, I
will propose this as an amendment to Erik Biscoff & co.
** R002 Objections
They say specifically in the rationale
<URL:http://dulug.duke.edu/~mark/debian/sgml/bischoff/rationale/overr002.html>:
| There is only one lower level of directories. The directory names
| are vaguely defined as holding one "package". One advantage is that
| the relation to any RPM or DEB package is very close. The other
| advantage is that we have a very flat tree, thus easing both
| hacking, packaging and maintenance by system administrators.
We disagree heartily with this.
It seems we wish for a deeper structure, and feel that throwing all
verisoned DTDs, entities, stylesheets and such into one directory is
going to propogate a hideous mess.
R001 rationale
<URL:http://dulug.duke.edu/~mark/debian/sgml/bischoff/rationale/overr001.html>
points out a valid objection to the Debian way -- splitting entities,
decls, and dtds for one "package" (e.g., docbook) into many
directories. I think we should take this to heart. All files that go
with, say, docbook 4.1, should all be together rather than spread
apart. This makes it easier for users as well as packagers. Making
things easy for packagers is a big big big plus.
Mark said he would formulate a version of R002 which is how *we* would
propose it.
** R003 Possible Bug
In <URL:http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/gLSB/gLSB/sgmlr003.html>, they
recommend the distributed catalogs be named such as:
/usr/share/sgml/docbook/dsssl-stylesheets-1.54/catalog
Norm has pointed out that jade / openjade will be *forced* to use that
when it uses *any* of the files in that directory.
Is this a known plus or a bug? We're going to need to try it out and
find out. Seems like a bug to me.
--
.....Adam Di Carlo....adam@onShore.com.....<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
Reply to: