Re: packaging policy questions re new standard
Adam Di Carlo <adam@onshore.com> writes:
> As I said before, I don't mind versioned directories, but I object to
> versioning the packages -- at least, one package for every minor
> version seems idiotic.
You're right. Obviously, the proposal (now the proposed standard) is
clear enough. It only was my intention to have version package name for
major versions (these are incompatible by definition; at least, as long
as we're talking about DokBook). In theory there's no need to have more
the the last minor version available; the reason is they are considered
to be backward compatible -- and they are AFAIK. SGML system managers
have to provide CATALOGs to map the old identifiers to the new version:
PUBLIC "-//Davenport//DTD DocBook V3.0//EN"
/usr/share/sgml/OASIS/dtd/DocBook_V3.1
PUBLIC "-//OASIS//DTD DocBook V3.1//EN"
/usr/share/sgml/OASIS/dtd/DocBook_V3.1
I didn't test such an approach lately that much; but it work for me at
home prior to the avent of DocBook 4.x.
> I can understand, say, a version of docbook DTDs for major versions,
> such a 3.x, 4.x, etc.
Agreed.
> I cannot see why it makes sense for docbook-xsl-stylesheets. So what,
> there are different bugs in different versions. This stuff isn't very
> stable yet! Is that any good reason to promote the endless bloat of
> one package for every minor version of a package? Users can put
> packages on hold if they want to stick with a particular version.
Yes guess you're right here, too (I'm not that much familiar with XSL).
As long as Norman takes care the DSSSL stylesheets continue to work for
old DocBook DTDs there will be no need to keep the old versions. It's
up to the responsibility of the user to perserve an old version if he
relies on it (maybe, he has done some customizations or something).
--
Linux Frechet 2.2.18 #1 Fri Jan 19 22:10:35 GMT 2001 i686 unknown
9:24am up 21:20, 7 users, load average: 0.03, 0.03, 0.00
work : ke@suse.de
Karl Eichwalder home : keichwa@gmx.net
Reply to: