Your message dated Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:24:42 +0200
with message-id <[email protected]>
has caused the report #492736,
regarding use of embedded software packages
to be marked as having been forwarded to the upstream software
author(s) "W. Martin Borgert" <[email protected]>, Benoit Guillon
<[email protected]>
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
492736: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=492736
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
W. Martin Borgert <[email protected]> wrote:
> IIRC, dblatex contains a copy of rubber, which is a Debian
> package as well. I think dblatex contains some changes/fixes,
> which probably can be incorporated into rubber directly.
Hello Martin and Benoît,
Martin, thanks for your reminder regarding this report. I always
thought I had answered this already, only to learn now that I never have
actually sent the draft… Sorry. Anyway, better later than never:
I agree with you in general: for a software distribution like Debian it
is achievable to reuse existings components instead of copying them.
However I also respect the upstream goal to introduce as few
dependencies as possible, even now the list is quite long for someone
installing manually (quoting the documentation regarding dblatex's
dependencies):
- An XSLT processor
- The XML DocBook DTD
- A recent LaTeX distribution
- Python >= 2.4
Let's look at the two embedded dependencies mentioned:
rubber → grubber
----------------
I have tried to compare the grubber with the rubber files, and it looks
like grubber has been modified substantially, even the file names don't
match any longer. But the expert for this surely is you, Benoît, as
grubber's creator. The question is about the nature of grubber: is it
an adaption that can be reintegrated back or is it a meanwhile
independant fork? Anyhow – at least two issues must be resolved in
order to use rubber with dblatex:
- rubber would need to expose its functionality as a Python library, at
the moment its only interface is the command line.
- rubber would need to support XeTeX.
l10n files
----------
It's quite easy to use the original l10n files of docbook-xsl instead of
the dblatex ones: just change the link to l10n.xml in
/usr/share/xml/docbook/stylesheet/dblatex/xsl/common/l10n.xsl from the
dblatex to the docbook-xsl location. The result works basically, but
when executing a more complex document like the dblatex documentation
one observes warnings like:
No context named "xref-without-title" exists in the "en" localization.
This demonstrates that the dblatex files have been adapted, too. As I
can't imagine docbook-xsl to integrate dblatex specific adaptions, a
strategy would be to separate the original files xyz.xml from the
dblatex adaptions xyz.dblatex.xml. With this restructuring dblatex
would load the xyz.xml files first and the xyz.dblatex.xml files
afterwards. For upstream dblatex the xyz.xml files would be kept in the
dblatex package, whereas Debian dblatex would remove them and use the
docbook-xsl files instead.
Benoît, as usual the original report can be found at:
http://bugs.debian.org/492736
Curious about your thoughts, Andreas
--
Andreas Hoenen <[email protected]>
GPG: 1024D/B888D2CE
A4A6 E8B5 593A E89B 496B
82F0 728D 8B7E B888 D2CE
pgpehit8D3cCW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--- End Message ---
