Neil Roeth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Sep 16, Ardo van Rangelrooij ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > Neil Roeth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > Is the directory /usr/lib/sgml deprecated, or perhaps even obsolete? It is > > > included in opensp as part of the default sgml path and /usr/lib/sgml/catalog > > > is included as part of default catalog path. On my system, everything in > > > those paths is just a symlink to /usr/share/sgml. If /usr/lib/sgml is > > > obsolete, I'd like to remove any references to it from my packages before we > > > release sarge. > > > > Hi, > > > > Have you perhaps been reading my web page about sgml-base usage (or the lack of > > it): http://people.debian.org/~ardo/PACKAGES/SGML/sgml-base.html ??? > > No, I hadn't seen it. Now I have :-)
Good. :-) > > I'm going (albeit slowly) over all the SGML related packages to check their > > conformance to the Debian SGML policy. Since I've only picked this up again > > lately and haven't checked that many packages yet, I haven't announced this > > yet publicly and officially. By theway, if you look at this page, please > > ignore the "Old" stuff. The "New" section has the results of my latest check. > > > > But since you're asking: Yes, /usr/lib/sgml is deprecated and we only have > symlinks > > in there (except for openjade1.3. I'm not aware we already made the decision to > > remove these symlinks. Currently they're there for backwards compatibility. > That's > > also why there still is a symlink to the /etc/sgml/catalog in there. > > > > If the people on this list think it's time to break this backwards compatibility > > and really clean up /usr/lib/sgml that's fine by me. I'll then put the code in > > sgml-base to remove the symlink to /etc/sgm/catalog, remove the transitional > > catalog and try to 'rmdir /usr/lib/sgml'. > > I don't have a particularly strong reason to remove /usr/lib/sgml, but I > realized if we wait for sarge+1, then that will mean it will exist for a > couple of years more. If we forget to do something we need to do for a smooth > transition, then we'd have to wait for sarge+2, which is probably a couple of > years beyond that. If we can just delete it for sarge without significant > negative side effects, that'd be great. Good points. I would say we start ASAP and see what breaks. That leaves us time to fix things. > > It would also be nice in the maintainer of openjade1.3 (hi Yann) finally fixed > > bug report #177801 to remove those files from /usr/lib/sgml. Maybe this needs > > to be NMU'ed. > > > > There are a couple of other issues with sp, jade and the like, but I haven't put > > those on that web page yet (hint: empty directories). > > OK, I'll do what needs doing for sp and jade. I've updated the web page with these issues. Thanks, Ardo -- Ardo van Rangelrooij home email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] home page: http://people.debian.org/~ardo GnuPG fp: 3B 1F 21 72 00 5C 3A 73 7F 72 DF D9 90 78 47 F9 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
