docbook-apps

> Yeah. This could have been a solution :) I just have one problem with
> that: The extensions do not exist on Debian systems. Unfortunately I
> cannot provide them with the docbook-xsl package.

I don't understand. Are you saying the DocBook XSL package on Debian
excludes the extensions directory of the distribution? Why? What else
does it leave out?

Bob Stayton
Sagehill Enterprises
DocBook Consulting
bobs@sagehill.net

Am Dienstag, den 27.02.2007, 00:09 -0800 schrieb Bob Stayton:
> > Yeah. This could have been a solution :) I just have one problem with
> > that: The extensions do not exist on Debian systems. Unfortunately I
> > cannot provide them with the docbook-xsl package.
>
> I don't understand. Are you saying the DocBook XSL package on Debian
> excludes the extensions directory of the distribution?

Yes.

> Why?

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=331661


> What else does it leave out?

I don't ship the docsrc/ directory atm. It was re-added to the
distribution recently and atm I don't see a need to ship it. But this
was already discussed with Michael Smith. Further empty files and
doubled information. The packaging files are not a secret.

I would like to see the extensions in Debian. But to avoid doubled work,
it would be very nice to have a Java archive with only the extensions.
As I said: I should forward this to a different group (and did this
now).

You didn't say anything about the PDF-output I attached. Is it a bug or
the intended design?

Regards, Daniel

Daniel Leidert <daniel.leidert.spam@gmx.net>, 2007-02-27 09:49 +0100:

> I would like to see the extensions in Debian. But to avoid doubled work,
> it would be very nice to have a Java archive with only the extensions.
> As I said: I should forward this to a different group (and did this
> now).

I think it would probably help if we were to release the
extensions as a separate upstream package. I will try to get that
done within the next couple of weeks.

Note that at one time, Ville Skyttä created a docbook-xsl-java
package for the JPackage project:

http://www.jpackage.org/browser/rpm.php?jppversion=1.6&id=965

That was versioned 1.67.0 because it was extracted from the
upstream docbook-xsl stylesheets package. It looks like they have
not done up updated package since then.

So I reckon what I'll do is to create a new separate
docbook-xsl-java upstream release, just using the 1.N numbering
scheme, starting at 1.0. That numbering will create a problem for
JPackage users who want to update their installed docbook-xsl-java
package (I think we'd need to number it 1.67.1 or higher to make
the RPM system recognize it a superseding the 1.67.0 package) but
I don't think there are enough people who have installed it from
that to justify keeping that numbering scheme.

--Mike