ITP: sgml-base-1.1

Joshua Daniel Franklin
Wed Jan 7 02:43:00 GMT 2004

> wrote:
> > This is a small package but one I hope will enable me (and perhaps
> > others) to contribute various SGML DTDs in a FHS-compliant way.

On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 01:47:51PM -0500, Nicholas Wourms wrote:
> Thank You!!!!
Thanks to everyone willing to discuss this. Like Gerrit, I'm
not all that partisan to any one way of doing things, but I'd really
like to have something to offer people, especially for building
the Cygwin docs.

> 1)  For various reasons, I don't care for debian's approach to the 
> layout of the /usr/share/sgml tree.  For one, it is obtuse and quite 
> geared towards a debian linux system.  IMNSO, and not to be a suckup to 
> RedHat, RedHat's layout makes much more sense.  Plus, it follows a more 
> "loosely" adhered to standard for putting files where most scripts and 
> configure programs expect them.  

Like I said above, I'm really more interesting in doing *something* than
worrying about being Debian- or RedHat-based.

> Furthermore, despite those links you 
> gave, the FHS *really* doesn't have very much to say on the subject, 
> other then specifying the TLD of the configuration directory and the 
> data directory.

Yes, the links were just to explain that /etc/sgml/ and /usr/share/sgml/
are the FHS directories. Those links weren't saying anything about 
/usr/share/sgml/docbook/dtd/4.1/ (the Debian way) vs.
/usr/share/sgml/sgml-dtd-4.1/ (RedHat). 

> 2)  As I mentioned, I have a working OpenSP/openjade.  The main problem 
> is the prolific use of that #%$@#^! broken g++ #pragma (the same one 
> that breaks mysql builds) in OpenSP.  Also, there are some other dumb 
> c++ style issues which cause gcc-3.3+ to choke (thanks, of course, to 
> the anal standards people on the gcc steering committee).  Anyhow, I 
> have a patch against the current openjade && OpenSP which resolve all 
> these problems, fix some leaks, and produce a usable jade suite.

Again, like Gerrit I am interested in these patches. Could you send them
to the list for future users?
> 4)  Another reason going with a more RedHat-ish layout is to make it 
> easier to package the other items.  The spec files were extremely useful 
> in demystifying the install process.  In fact, once I had hand-installed 
> the various base programs, I was able to use rpm to build and install 
> the rest from the srpms:
> docbook-style-dssl-1.78-2
> passivetex-1.24-2.1
> xhtml1-dtds-1.0-5
> docbook-utils-0.6.13-7
> docbook-utils-pdf-0.6.13-7
> docbook-dtds-1.0-22.1
> docbook-style-xsl-1.61.2-2.1
> xmltex-20000118-14.1
> jadetex-3.12-9
> perl-SGMLpm-103ii-12
> linuxdoc-tools-0.9.21-1

This sounds great. I guess openjade and opensp are the base programs
you're talking about? Once we get those patches from you, we can package
them up, then!
> 5)  Doing it the RedHat way enabled me to produce a system which could 
> actually build our documentation using the db2* utils.  The cygnus style 
> sheets are actually quite nice, once you get used to them.

Yes, I have no problem with the cygnus stylesheets or the db2* utils, it's
just that they aren't installable with setup.exe; having a docbook-utils
package would also work fine.

> 6)  You really shouldn't use update-sgml-catalog, it is preferred that 
> one use:
> xmlcatalog --sgml --noout --add /etc/sgml/ 
> /usr/share/sgml/openjade-1.3.3/
> instead.  See the spec files for some of those packages to get the basic 
> jist of the situation.

That does make more sense.

> I don't consider myself an authority on the subject, but trying to get a 
> perfected full blown docbook system has been a year-long project for me. 
>   Sure it's easy to get a semi-working system, but trying to work out 
> all the rough edges is a bit more challenging and required me to learn 
> more about SGML/XML/DocBook then I would have cared to.  Anyhow, if 
> you're interested, I'd be happy to share my 
> patches/specfiles/procedures/pitfalls.  Please feel free to contact me 
> off list...

Well, I've just been getting into it, so it would be great to hear some
pointers. I'd also actually rather the discussion be on-list so it shows
up in archives. We can move it to cygwin@ if necessary.

So, what I'm hearing from Nicholas is that it would be better to withdraw
my particular sgml-base and adopt RedHat's setup and convert their rpm's into
setup.exe packages.  (Does anyone have a script that does some of the work?)
Is it still worth having sgml-base to create an empty /etc/sgml/catalog
and have examples?

More information about the Cygwin-apps mailing list