Adam Di Carlo writes: > > 1. Is a separate doc package (docbook-xsl-stylesheets-doc) required?
> The only reason why I separate it for docbook-stylesheets is that the > documentation is very mammoth. For now, I wouldn't bother. OK. > > 2. Where do I install the perl scripts and library files found in the > > bin directory? > > they could stay where they are -- in the bin directory next to the > > other stylesheet subdirs in > > > > /usr/share/sgml/docbook/xsl-stylesheets-1.29/ > > I would not suggest using a versioned directory, really -- is that > required by the spec? Yep, sure is. Read this page: http://dulug.duke.edu/~mark/debian/sgml/bischoff/r002.html > It shouldn't be versioned because people can > only have one at a time installed True, but that's a policy decision, not a system requirement. I brought this point up in a previous post (http://lists.debian.org/debian-sgml-0101/msg00003.html). In Norm's response he gave a couple of reasons to allow multiple versions: - if one version has some brokenness users could install another version, or, - if users want to try his experimental releases. IMHO, the real problem with the versioned directories has to do with the stylesheets in docbook-derivative packages, (e.g.docbook-website): These auxiliary stylesheets import/include sheets from the main xsl stylesheet distribution, but there's no available catalog mechanism they can use to find the main distribution. Without versioned directories the obvious solution is to use relative paths, as in <xsl:import href="../"versionless-path-component"/html/docbook.xsl"/> which won't work with versioned directories. One solution is to put in a symlink with a version-free name like /usr/share/sgml/docbook/xsl-stylesheets and use /etc/alternatives to decide where it points. Ardo agreed. (I mentioned this issue to the docbook-utils folks, but they didn't respond. I have no idea how redhat systems will take care of this.) Note that this problem exists whether or not we allow multiple stylesheet versions on a system -- it's an artifact of the versioned directory names. Another ramification of the policy is package naming. The spec suggests using the version number in the package name itself: http://dulug.duke.edu/~mark/debian/sgml/bischoff/r007.html BTW, the rationale for the versioned directories is to allow different DTD versions to peacefully coexist, and to allow for individual packaging of the different versions. This possibility has some advantages, as each new docbook DTD package wouldn't need to contain previous versions of the DTD. Which is how it's done now. The rationale is here: http://dulug.duke.edu/~mark/debian/sgml/bischoff/overr002.html BTW, thanks for clearing up my other questions. Mark > (unlike the legacy old docbook or > HTML dtds and such). > > It could either go in /usr/lib/sgml if it's XSL material, or if not, > probably /usr/share/<package-name> . > > -- > .....Adam Di [EMAIL PROTECTED]<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
