Re: [DocBook] Does the librairies have to be there...
Arnaud Vandyck <arnaud.vandyck@ulg.ac.be> writes:
> Looking at /usr/share/sgml/docbook/stylesheet/xsl/nwalsh/extensions/,
> there are saxon643.jar, saxon644.jar, saxon651.jar, saxon65.jar,
> xalan2.jar. But I think jar does not have to be there.
>
> You can have a look at the section 2.4 Java Librairies[1] of the Java
> Policy.
>
> I do not know if you already discuss this on the list and forget me if
> it's the case. I did not want to fill a bug if it is not necessary!
>
> A proposal can be to put the librairies in /usr/share/java with the
> name:
>
> docbook-[parser]-[version]-extension.jar
>
> (maybe it's too long?)
It is a bit. There are reasons to keep the upstream JAR name, e.g.,
for XML building scripts that use this.
OTOH, I agree jarfiles in
/usr/share/sgml/docbook/stylesheet/xsl/nwalsh/extensions/ should be
symlinks, and tha the Java shipped with the docbook-xsl package should
comply with the Debian Java policy. Can you file a bug against
docbook-xsl outlining the current non-compliance?
One might go even further and break out the Java into separate
packages depending on the processor in question, e.g., a certain
version of saxon, a certain version of xalan2....
--
...Adam Di Carlo..<adam@onshore-devel.com>...<URL:http://www.onshored.com/>
Reply to: