[xml/sgml] Packaging docbook-css

[W. Borgert]

[David, I put you on CC, because maybe you have a suggestion for
the Debian package name of your CSS files?]

On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 04:03:31PM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> My only issue is with the package name.  'docbook-css' is a rather
> generic title, and it kinda gives it the air of officialdom, which you
> might want to think twice about.

Yes, docbook-css sounds a little bit official.  OTOH, we have
db2latex-xsl, debiandoc2dbxml, and ooo2dbk, which is confusing.
db is normally "data base", worse, db2 is a specific RDBMS by IBM.
I use dbk as file extension for DocBook files, but dbk is not as
clear as DocBook for a package name.  docbook-to-man and
docbook2x are the only packages with "docbook" in the name and
not "official" DocBook/XML stuff.

Either I stay with the upstream name docbook-css, or I add
the author name to it ("docbook-css-holroyd" or
"holroyd-docbook-css"), if he doesn't object.  However, I do not
see the danger of alternative DocBook CSS stylesheets, that are
really worth separate packaging.

Btw. I am *so* happy, I use SVN, not CVS, for docbook-css, as
renaming the top-level directory is a matter of a second :-)

Cheers,
-- 
W. Borgert <debacle at debian.org>, http://people.debian.org/~debacle/