Re: XML FO processors
On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 09:11:03PM +0200, Bart Schuller wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 02:45:04PM +0200, Yann Dirson wrote:
> > I suggest that we introduce a new virtual package, named
> > xml-fo-formatter, which will be Provides:'d by packages able to make
> > sense of it (ie. turn them into printable material), and Suggests:'d
> > by xsl processors.
>
> packages? That would be both of them then (fop and passivetex).
>
> > I don't think there is currently any means of finding such software in
> > the archive, and this does not help to make Debian easy to use to
> > process XML documents.
>
> A virtual package in itself does nothing to enhance visibility. Also, a
> virtual package is normally used for packages that provide the same
> interface (like /usr/sbin/sendmail).
Not necessarily. See virtual packages www-browser, news-reader,
news-transport-system, etc.
> Fop and passivetex are radically different
As long as they provide the same kind of functionnality, there should
be no problem.
> (and both still incomplete enough to irritate).
That's another story :)
> Oh, and it turns out passivetex isn't even packaged yet, and fop is 3
> versions behind.
There is already a bugreport on fop, and an ITP on PassiveTeX - I CC
the respective persons.
> What's wrong with a Suggests: one|theother?
You don't want to update every XML->FO package each time a new FO->x
processor is added. Think of post-woody release, when packages are
backported. That's why virtual packages exist... As well, that would
allow to prepare everything, so that no change is required when
passivetex comes.
--
Yann Dirson <Yann.Dirson@fr.alcove.com> http://www.alcove.com/
Free-Software Engineer Ingénieur Logiciel-Libre
Free-Software time manager Responsable du temps Informatique-Libre
Reply to: