Re: /usr/lib/sgml
Neil Roeth (neil@debian.org) wrote:
> On Sep 16, Ardo van Rangelrooij (ardo@debian.org) wrote:
> > Neil Roeth (neil@debian.org) wrote:
> > > Is the directory /usr/lib/sgml deprecated, or perhaps even obsolete? It is
> > > included in opensp as part of the default sgml path and /usr/lib/sgml/catalog
> > > is included as part of default catalog path. On my system, everything in
> > > those paths is just a symlink to /usr/share/sgml. If /usr/lib/sgml is
> > > obsolete, I'd like to remove any references to it from my packages before we
> > > release sarge.
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Have you perhaps been reading my web page about sgml-base usage (or the lack of
> > it): http://people.debian.org/~ardo/PACKAGES/SGML/sgml-base.html ???
>
> No, I hadn't seen it. Now I have :-)
Good. :-)
> > I'm going (albeit slowly) over all the SGML related packages to check their
> > conformance to the Debian SGML policy. Since I've only picked this up again
> > lately and haven't checked that many packages yet, I haven't announced this
> > yet publicly and officially. By theway, if you look at this page, please
> > ignore the "Old" stuff. The "New" section has the results of my latest check.
> >
> > But since you're asking: Yes, /usr/lib/sgml is deprecated and we only have symlinks
> > in there (except for openjade1.3. I'm not aware we already made the decision to
> > remove these symlinks. Currently they're there for backwards compatibility. That's
> > also why there still is a symlink to the /etc/sgml/catalog in there.
> >
> > If the people on this list think it's time to break this backwards compatibility
> > and really clean up /usr/lib/sgml that's fine by me. I'll then put the code in
> > sgml-base to remove the symlink to /etc/sgm/catalog, remove the transitional
> > catalog and try to 'rmdir /usr/lib/sgml'.
>
> I don't have a particularly strong reason to remove /usr/lib/sgml, but I
> realized if we wait for sarge+1, then that will mean it will exist for a
> couple of years more. If we forget to do something we need to do for a smooth
> transition, then we'd have to wait for sarge+2, which is probably a couple of
> years beyond that. If we can just delete it for sarge without significant
> negative side effects, that'd be great.
Good points. I would say we start ASAP and see what breaks. That leaves us
time to fix things.
> > It would also be nice in the maintainer of openjade1.3 (hi Yann) finally fixed
> > bug report #177801 to remove those files from /usr/lib/sgml. Maybe this needs
> > to be NMU'ed.
> >
> > There are a couple of other issues with sp, jade and the like, but I haven't put
> > those on that web page yet (hint: empty directories).
>
> OK, I'll do what needs doing for sp and jade.
I've updated the web page with these issues.
Thanks,
Ardo
--
Ardo van Rangelrooij
home email: ardo@debian.org
home page: http://people.debian.org/~ardo
GnuPG fp: 3B 1F 21 72 00 5C 3A 73 7F 72 DF D9 90 78 47 F9
Reply to: