[xml/sgml] Conflict between docbook-utils and docbook2x packages
Aaron S. Hawley
Aaron.Hawley@uvm.edu
Tue, 27 Jul 2004 16:59:13 -0400 (EDT)
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote:
> Rafael Laboissiere (rafael@debian.org) wrote:
> > docbook2x and docbook-utils both provide programs called docbook2man and
> > docbook2texi. Currently, the conflict is avoided by the docbook2x package,
> > which renames the commands to docbook2x-man and docbook2x-texi (although the
> > manpages still refer to the old names).
> >
> > [clip]
> >
> > I would suggest to simply drop the docbook2man and docbook2texi commands
> > from docbook-utils. What do you think?
>
> This is also what I brought up in an earlier message on this list. This is one
> of the many issues with docbook-utils.
>
> If we want to go down this path we either have docbook-utils be
> depending on docbook2x to prevent breaking the packages that currently
> rely on dcobook-utils for these tools, or we have to have those package
> be (build) dependent directly on docbook2x. Also, we should comparing
> the output of both. If there are any differences we should people make
> aware of them, otherwise we'll be flooded by bug reports about this.
Hi, I'm an XML newbie and just *happened* to catch this thread by somehow
stumpbling into this forum and then bumbling through the archives.
Because of the command name mixup mentioned above, I came close to
submitting a bug report which would be a duplicate of the following:
jade:/usr/share/sgml/docbook/dtd/xml/4.2/docbookx.dtd:112:17:E: "X20AC" is
not a function name
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=222058
i would have attributed my bug report to the docbook2X package and not the
docbook-utils.
So you may want to consider less the possibility of getting complaints
from the worn-out SGML veteran users (perhaps these old poops exist, I
wouldn't know) and worry more about being inundated by docbook-utils's
bugs because of the confusion.
aaron "moving along much better by typing docbook2x-texi" hawley
/a