Re: apt in xml docbook 4 format available
thanks for your fast response.
Op zondag 14 december 2003 22:11, schreef Jason Gunthorpe:
> On Sun, 14 Dec 2003, Richard Bos wrote:
> > Can you review the result (compare them for example with the manpages
> > currently distributed). "My" manpages can be easily viewed with:
> > MANPATH=doc man apt-get/apt-cache/etc
> The formatting is definately nicer than the old sgmltools formatting. I'm
> not sure I like the double spaces between paragraphs, but everything else
> is much better.
I prefer single spaces between the paragraphs, but it is not the way it is
today. This just depends on the xsl files, being used to do the conversion.
I think that this could be worked out in the future, if it is really
> > The xsl manpages templates
> > (/usr/share/sgml/docbook/docbook-xsl-stylesheets-1.61.3/manpages/*)
> > needed to be updated to get the apt manpages formatted correctly. This
> > has been done already (1 patch remaining) and I have been told that those
> > updated xsl templates will be released shortly.
> > The author is mentioned twice in the manpages. I left it like that, but
> > I think that 1 or the other should be removed. Let me know what should
> > be done with it.
> This is definately wrong, it looks like the 2nd one is being auto
> generated by the XSL from the REFENTY, it should not do that if one is
> manually specified..
Both are specified in apt.ent. Yours as <refentryinfo><author> and the
apt-team as <refsect><author>. In this case: is there a manually specified
author? I don't know now how this must be altered to obtain the desired
> > Last thing: there is an apt.ent.in file. This is needed to get the
> > processing date in all manpages.
> Why do you want the processing date in the man pages? The date in the man
> pages should be the date the text was updated, not the date it was
Ah, I just thought it was done like that in the current manpages. They're all
dated "20 August". It now appears that not all of them have this date. It is
of course easy to put the date tag in the manpage document itself. I agree
that this seems the right thing to do.
> It seems the xmlto in debian unstable is a bit broken, it cannot find the
> dtd you used, that might pose a problem.
:( I hope you are not right...
On my system the dtd is located here:
I think the file is provided by the docbook-xml pkg for debian. I searched a
bit on the web and I found this (unfortenately packages.debian.org is still
How to go forward if you find the right dtd? Are there any showstoppers to
commit the xml files?