Re: Playing with the spec
* Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> wrote:
> I have just subscribed to this list (at least, I think so,
> since the confirm message was in what I believe is spanish, and that
> is beyond my ken). Is there an archive of previous discussion on this
> subject?
http://listas.conectiva.com.br/listas/docbook-tools
> Could someone explain the rationale of embedding version
> numbers in the directory structure, hance having the directory
> structure change with each package upgrade, rather than having things
> like /usr/share/sgml/jade-1.2.1/?
You don't really want to replace a DTD or such with a newer one, you
will still need them for applications that rely on them. "Upgrading"
means *adding* new stuff here, not replacing older with newer
versions. Therefore there have to be version numbers in the names.
> I would also be interested in the reasons for hard coding
> package names into a recommended standard. It seems to be me, perhaps
> naively, that we would be better off specifying package agnostic
> layouts like:
> /usr/share/sgml/
> stylesheets/
> dtds/
> decls/
> entities/
> and let each vendor/distribution handle how individual packages
> provide the files under each of the directories.
We are thinking about a useful structure for this right now. One
possibility would be to package this like that:
/usr/share/sgml/
docbook-3.1/
dtd/
entities/
style-sheets/
images/
If now KDE wants to install it's own package for documentation
converting, it could plug it in as this:
/usr/share/sgml/
kde-1.2/
dtd/
entities/
style-sheets/
images/
This is just an idea and may be way too simple.
> ps> please CC me on this discussion, since I am unsure of my
> ps> confirmation actually succeeded.
You have to reply to the confirmation message, have you done that?
Jochem
--
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!
Reply to: