china inflatable

From mh@glandium.org Tue Jul 6 17:33:16 2004 From: mh@glandium.org (Mike Hommey) Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 01:33:16 +0900 Subject: [xml/sgml] [RFS] libxml2 and libxslt new upstream Message-ID: <40EAD44C.6070801@glandium.org> Hi list, I have two new packages ready for release. As usual, everything is in the svn (and awaiting to be taggued), and also available on my repository: http://glandium.org/debian/unstable/libxml2_2.6.11-1_i386.changes http://glandium.org/debian/unstable/libxslt_1.1.8-1_i386.changes Thanks in advance for the sponsorship. Cheers, Mike PS: I had to run a svnadmin recover on the repository to get it working again... From export@balloon.com.cn Sat Jul 10 09:37:14 2004 From: export@balloon.com.cn (China Inflatable Inc.) Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 16:37:14 +0800 Subject: [xml/sgml] We got you info from you website,Hope cooperation. china inflatable


	CHINEE， China's Inflatables.
	We offer high quality inflatable products in any size or style.
	Please browse the product sorts.












----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download:		Price List Order Form Catalogue
More info:		www.balloon.com.cn
Contact us:		Tel:00 86 20 88395948 Fax:00 86 20 83684025
E-mail:		export@balloon.com.cn
If you do not need this info, Click here

From mh@glandium.org Tue Jul 13 16:05:10 2004 From: mh@glandium.org (Mike Hommey) Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 00:05:10 +0900 Subject: [xml/sgml] [RFS] libxml2 and libxslt new upstream In-Reply-To: <40EAD44C.6070801@glandium.org> References: <40EAD44C.6070801@glandium.org> Message-ID: <40F3FA26.4030508@glandium.org> Second call Mike Hommey wrote: > Hi list, > > I have two new packages ready for release. As usual, everything is in > the svn (and awaiting to be taggued), and also available on my repository: > http://glandium.org/debian/unstable/libxml2_2.6.11-1_i386.changes > http://glandium.org/debian/unstable/libxslt_1.1.8-1_i386.changes > > Thanks in advance for the sponsorship. > > Cheers, > > Mike From ardo@debian.org Tue Jul 13 16:38:52 2004 From: ardo@debian.org (Ardo van Rangelrooij) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 10:38:52 -0500 Subject: [xml/sgml] [RFS] libxml2 and libxslt new upstream In-Reply-To: <40F3FA26.4030508@glandium.org> References: <40EAD44C.6070801@glandium.org> <40F3FA26.4030508@glandium.org> Message-ID: <20040713153852.GG25798@sbcglobal.net> I'll get to it later today or tomorrow morning. Mike Hommey (mh@glandium.org) wrote: > Second call > > Mike Hommey wrote: > >Hi list, > > > >I have two new packages ready for release. As usual, everything is in > >the svn (and awaiting to be taggued), and also available on my repository: > >http://glandium.org/debian/unstable/libxml2_2.6.11-1_i386.changes > >http://glandium.org/debian/unstable/libxslt_1.1.8-1_i386.changes > > > >Thanks in advance for the sponsorship. > > > >Cheers, > > > >Mike > > _______________________________________________ > Debian-xml-sgml-devel mailing list > Debian-xml-sgml-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/debian-xml-sgml-devel -- Ardo van Rangelrooij Debian XML/SGML Group

http://people.debian.org/~ardo/ http://debian-xml-sgml.alioth.debian.org/ From mh@glandium.org Sun Jul 18 08:24:41 2004 From: mh@glandium.org (Mike Hommey) Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 16:24:41 +0900 Subject: [xml/sgml] [RFS] libxml2 and libxslt new upstream In-Reply-To: <20040713153852.GG25798@sbcglobal.net> References: <40EAD44C.6070801@glandium.org> <40F3FA26.4030508@glandium.org> <20040713153852.GG25798@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <20040718072440.GA1267@vaio.glandium.org> On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 10:38:52AM -0500, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote: > I'll get to it later today or tomorrow morning. Thanks for the libxml2 upload. Don't forget libxslt ;) Cheers Mike From ardo@debian.org Sun Jul 18 13:15:29 2004 From: ardo@debian.org (Ardo van Rangelrooij) Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 07:15:29 -0500 Subject: [xml/sgml] [RFS] libxml2 and libxslt new upstream In-Reply-To: <20040718072440.GA1267@vaio.glandium.org> References: <40EAD44C.6070801@glandium.org> <40F3FA26.4030508@glandium.org> <20040713153852.GG25798@sbcglobal.net> <20040718072440.GA1267@vaio.glandium.org> Message-ID: <20040718121529.GI25798@sbcglobal.net> Mike Hommey (mh@glandium.org) wrote: > On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 10:38:52AM -0500, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote: > > I'll get to it later today or tomorrow morning. > > Thanks for the libxml2 upload. Don't forget libxslt ;) Oh crap... I totally overlooked that. Thanks for reminding me. I'll get to it later today. Thanks, Ardo -- Ardo van Rangelrooij Debian XML/SGML Group

http://people.debian.org/~ardo/ http://debian-xml-sgml.alioth.debian.org/ From ardo@debian.org Tue Jul 20 16:56:17 2004 From: ardo@debian.org (Ardo van Rangelrooij) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 10:56:17 -0500 Subject: [xml/sgml] [RFS] libxml2 and libxslt new upstream In-Reply-To: <20040718072440.GA1267@vaio.glandium.org> References: <40EAD44C.6070801@glandium.org> <40F3FA26.4030508@glandium.org> <20040713153852.GG25798@sbcglobal.net> <20040718072440.GA1267@vaio.glandium.org> Message-ID: <20040720155617.GK25798@sbcglobal.net> Mike, I'm getting a DB error: > svn co svn+ssh://ardo@svn.debian.org/svn/debian-xml-sgml/packages/libxslt/trunk svn: Berkeley DB error while opening environment for filesystem /svn/debian-xml-sgml/db: DB_RUNRECOVERY: Fatal error, run database recovery Thanks, Ardo -- Ardo van Rangelrooij Debian XML/SGML Group

http://people.debian.org/~ardo/ http://debian-xml-sgml.alioth.debian.org/ From stappers@stappers.nl Tue Jul 20 17:32:56 2004 From: stappers@stappers.nl (Geert Stappers) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 18:32:56 +0200 Subject: [xml/sgml] [RFS] libxml2 and libxslt new upstream In-Reply-To: <20040720155617.GK25798@sbcglobal.net>; from ardo@debian.org on Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 10:56:17AM -0500 References: <40EAD44C.6070801@glandium.org> <40F3FA26.4030508@glandium.org> <20040713153852.GG25798@sbcglobal.net> <20040718072440.GA1267@vaio.glandium.org> <20040720155617.GK25798@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <20040720183256.A19064@macwheel.xs4all.nl> --rwEMma7ioTxnRzrJ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 10:56:17AM -0500, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote: > Mike, >=20 > I'm getting a DB error: >=20 > > svn co svn+ssh://ardo@svn.debian.org/svn/debian-xml-sgml/packages/l= ibxslt/trunk > svn: Berkeley DB error while opening environment for filesystem /svn/= debian-xml-sgml/db: > DB_RUNRECOVERY: Fatal error, run database recovery >=20 $ host svn.debian.org svn.debian.org has address 192.25.206.28 $ host alioth.debian.org alioth.debian.org has address 192.25.206.28 $ Contact alioth administrators when you keep getting the error. > Thanks, > Ardo Cheers Geert Stappers --rwEMma7ioTxnRzrJ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFA/Uk4OSINbgwa/7sRAv36AJ9aKWTVoLbUmKRf96pCgfy7nsZWogCfSBPt aGd8yeEVXr7dOjqPyTO3tJM= =5cBr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --rwEMma7ioTxnRzrJ-- From ardo@debian.org Tue Jul 20 18:41:06 2004 From: ardo@debian.org (Ardo van Rangelrooij) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 12:41:06 -0500 Subject: [xml/sgml] [RFS] libxml2 and libxslt new upstream In-Reply-To: <20040720183256.A19064@macwheel.xs4all.nl> References: <40EAD44C.6070801@glandium.org> <40F3FA26.4030508@glandium.org> <20040713153852.GG25798@sbcglobal.net> <20040718072440.GA1267@vaio.glandium.org> <20040720155617.GK25798@sbcglobal.net> <20040720183256.A19064@macwheel.xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <20040720174106.GP25798@sbcglobal.net> Geert Stappers (stappers@stappers.nl) wrote: > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 10:56:17AM -0500, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote: > > Mike, > > > > I'm getting a DB error: > > > > > svn co svn+ssh://ardo@svn.debian.org/svn/debian-xml-sgml/packages/libxslt/trunk > > svn: Berkeley DB error while opening environment for filesystem /svn/debian-xml-sgml/db: > > DB_RUNRECOVERY: Fatal error, run database recovery > > > > $ host svn.debian.org > svn.debian.org has address 192.25.206.28 > $ host alioth.debian.org > alioth.debian.org has address 192.25.206.28 > $ > > Contact alioth administrators when you keep getting the error. ??? I've got a suspicion that our SVN repository is hosed. It has happened before. So until I get confirmation from someone who knows SVN that our SVN reposiyory is indeed ok and it's indeed a host issues, I'm not going to bother the admins. Just running a couple of host command to find out which host hosts SVN doesn't mean anything to me. Thanks, Ardo -- Ardo van Rangelrooij Debian XML/SGML Group

http://people.debian.org/~ardo/ http://debian-xml-sgml.alioth.debian.org/ From ejb@ql.org Tue Jul 20 21:37:53 2004 From: ejb@ql.org (Jay Berkenbilt) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:37:53 -0400 Subject: [xml/sgml] [RFS] libxml2 and libxslt new upstream In-Reply-To: <20040720174106.GP25798@sbcglobal.net> (ardo@debian.org) References: <40EAD44C.6070801@glandium.org> <40F3FA26.4030508@glandium.org> <20040713153852.GG25798@sbcglobal.net> <20040718072440.GA1267@vaio.glandium.org> <20040720155617.GK25798@sbcglobal.net> <20040720183256.A19064@macwheel.xs4all.nl> <20040720174106.GP25798@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <20040720163753.1810391839.qww314159@soup.acv.apexcovantage.com> Mike and I have both had to run svnadmin recover on the repository from time to time. I follow the protocol of copying the repository first so if I screw up I have a reversion path. (Details outlined in an earlier message.) I personally find the repeated need to do this to be very alarming indeed, though I take some comfort in the fact that it continues to work. It has, in fact, prevented me from using subversion in my work environment, though this may be an overreaction. I wonder how often svadmin dump is run on alioth. It is interesting to note that Subversion 1.1.0 (for which there is a release candidate) has an alternative filesystem-based back end. I only lightly follow subversion development though so I don't know whether this was in response to Berkeley DB stability or something else. Before I switched to Debian, I was a Red Hat user. I became distrustful of Berkeley DB because my RPM database would get corrupted from time to time and need to be recovered. I'm not saying Berkeley DB is bad -- I don't really know enough about it to jump to any conclusions based on these errors, but I does at least make me a little suspicious.... It's worth noting that the problem you've mentioned (DB error) is different from what I've seen, which is that the client just hangs. --Jay From mh@glandium.org Wed Jul 21 05:31:51 2004 From: mh@glandium.org (Mike Hommey) Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 13:31:51 +0900 Subject: [xml/sgml] [RFS] libxml2 and libxslt new upstream In-Reply-To: <20040720163753.1810391839.qww314159@soup.acv.apexcovantage.com> References: <40EAD44C.6070801@glandium.org> <40F3FA26.4030508@glandium.org> <20040713153852.GG25798@sbcglobal.net> <20040718072440.GA1267@vaio.glandium.org> <20040720155617.GK25798@sbcglobal.net> <20040720183256.A19064@macwheel.xs4all.nl> <20040720174106.GP25798@sbcglobal.net> <20040720163753.1810391839.qww314159@soup.acv.apexcovantage.com> Message-ID: <20040721043150.GA17443@vaio.glandium.org> On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 04:37:53PM -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote: > It's worth noting that the problem you've mentioned (DB error) is > different from what I've seen, which is that the client just hangs. Note that this is the message I got last time i had to run svnadmin recover. And as I told you in a previous message, I am wondering if being running svn on an ia64 isn't the reason for our problems. I've myself been running a local svn repository for quite some time on my laptop and never had any trouble with it, and on an other hand, the debian XSF is using svn succesfully for a quite massive repository without any trouble that I'd be aware of. Mike From mh@glandium.org Wed Jul 21 05:41:54 2004 From: mh@glandium.org (Mike Hommey) Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 13:41:54 +0900 Subject: [xml/sgml] [RFS] libxml2 and libxslt new upstream In-Reply-To: <20040720155617.GK25798@sbcglobal.net> References: <40EAD44C.6070801@glandium.org> <40F3FA26.4030508@glandium.org> <20040713153852.GG25798@sbcglobal.net> <20040718072440.GA1267@vaio.glandium.org> <20040720155617.GK25798@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <20040721044154.GB17443@vaio.glandium.org> On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 10:56:17AM -0500, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote: > Mike, > > I'm getting a DB error: > > > svn co svn+ssh://ardo@svn.debian.org/svn/debian-xml-sgml/packages/libxslt/trunk > svn: Berkeley DB error while opening environment for filesystem /svn/debian-xml-sgml/db: > DB_RUNRECOVERY: Fatal error, run database recovery > > Thanks, > Ardo I ran an svnadmin recover on the repository and it seems to work properly again. Anyway, Pierre Machard (pmachard@debian.org) did the upload (cf. bug #260405), so I tagged in svn. Mike From ejb@ql.org Wed Jul 21 15:12:03 2004 From: ejb@ql.org (Jay Berkenbilt) Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 10:12:03 -0400 Subject: [xml/sgml] [RFS] libxml2 and libxslt new upstream In-Reply-To: <20040721043150.GA17443@vaio.glandium.org> (mh@glandium.org) References: <40EAD44C.6070801@glandium.org> <40F3FA26.4030508@glandium.org> <20040713153852.GG25798@sbcglobal.net> <20040718072440.GA1267@vaio.glandium.org> <20040720155617.GK25798@sbcglobal.net> <20040720183256.A19064@macwheel.xs4all.nl> <20040720174106.GP25798@sbcglobal.net> <20040720163753.1810391839.qww314159@soup.acv.apexcovantage.com> <20040721043150.GA17443@vaio.glandium.org> Message-ID: <20040721101203.1041172159.qww314159@soup.acv.apexcovantage.com> > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 04:37:53PM -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote: > > It's worth noting that the problem you've mentioned (DB error) is > > different from what I've seen, which is that the client just hangs. > > Note that this is the message I got last time i had to run svnadmin > recover. > > And as I told you in a previous message, I am wondering if being running > svn on an ia64 isn't the reason for our problems. I've myself been > running a local svn repository for quite some time on my laptop and > never had any trouble with it, and on an other hand, the debian XSF is > using svn succesfully for a quite massive repository without any > trouble that I'd be aware of. Right, I remember that. I'm not able to see how to tell that alioth is an ia64. /proc/cpuinfo and uname -a both seem to suggest i686. Am I missing something? I didn't think ia64 was i686. --Jay From mh@glandium.org Wed Jul 21 15:44:55 2004 From: mh@glandium.org (Mike Hommey) Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 23:44:55 +0900 Subject: [xml/sgml] [RFS] libxml2 and libxslt new upstream In-Reply-To: <20040721101203.1041172159.qww314159@soup.acv.apexcovantage.com> References: <40EAD44C.6070801@glandium.org> <40F3FA26.4030508@glandium.org> <20040713153852.GG25798@sbcglobal.net> <20040718072440.GA1267@vaio.glandium.org> <20040720155617.GK25798@sbcglobal.net> <20040720183256.A19064@macwheel.xs4all.nl> <20040720174106.GP25798@sbcglobal.net> <20040720163753.1810391839.qww314159@soup.acv.apexcovantage.com> <20040721043150.GA17443@vaio.glandium.org> <20040721101203.1041172159.qww314159@soup.acv.apexcovantage.com> Message-ID: <20040721144454.GA1050@vaio.glandium.org> On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 10:12:03AM -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote: > Right, I remember that. I'm not able to see how to tell that alioth > is an ia64. /proc/cpuinfo and uname -a both seem to suggest i686. > Am I missing something? I didn't think ia64 was i686. Ah yes, you're right ! Well, actually, alioth was an ia64, but now it's haydn... which is not. So I still fail to see what's going on... Then the only difference i can see is that haydn runs on woody... I wonder what XSF runs on. Mike From stappers@stappers.nl Wed Jul 21 16:34:02 2004 From: stappers@stappers.nl (Geert Stappers) Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 17:34:02 +0200 Subject: [xml/sgml] [RFS] libxml2 and libxslt new upstream In-Reply-To: <20040721043150.GA17443@vaio.glandium.org>; from mh@glandium.org on Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 01:31:51PM +0900 References: <40EAD44C.6070801@glandium.org> <40F3FA26.4030508@glandium.org> <20040713153852.GG25798@sbcglobal.net> <20040718072440.GA1267@vaio.glandium.org> <20040720155617.GK25798@sbcglobal.net> <20040720183256.A19064@macwheel.xs4all.nl> <20040720174106.GP25798@sbcglobal.net> <20040720163753.1810391839.qww314159@soup.acv.apexcovantage.com> <20040721043150.GA17443@vaio.glandium.org> Message-ID: <20040721173402.A20555@macwheel.xs4all.nl> --M9NhX3UHpAaciwkO Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Beware, this posting may be making the happy Alioth users unhappy. On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 01:31:51PM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 04:37:53PM -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote: > > It's worth noting that the problem you've mentioned (DB error) is > > different from what I've seen, which is that the client just hangs. >=20 > Note that this is the message I got last time i had to run svnadmin > recover. >=20 > And as I told you in a previous message, I am wondering if being running > svn on an ia64 isn't the reason for our problems. I've myself been > running a local svn repository for quite some time on my laptop and > never had any trouble with it, and on an other hand, the debian XSF is > using svn succesfully for a quite massive repository without any > trouble that I'd be aware of. =46rom http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/07/msg00421.html | > I would like to create an alioth project | | You mean that machine called haydn with broken hardware? I have read more bad news about alioth a.k.a. haydn on debian-boot, but those were more difficult to find back. Geert Stappers --M9NhX3UHpAaciwkO Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFA/ozqOSINbgwa/7sRAtUVAKCMTjQxQ8I+48HFI16uLTe2dBxV8ACfWPYP XUKN8PHpUyOFTeVFyFpRxRM= =bTYE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --M9NhX3UHpAaciwkO-- From stappers@stappers.nl Wed Jul 21 17:07:27 2004 From: stappers@stappers.nl (Geert Stappers) Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 18:07:27 +0200 Subject: [xml/sgml] [RFS] libxml2 and libxslt new upstream In-Reply-To: <20040720174106.GP25798@sbcglobal.net>; from ardo@debian.org on Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:41:06PM -0500 References: <40EAD44C.6070801@glandium.org> <40F3FA26.4030508@glandium.org> <20040713153852.GG25798@sbcglobal.net> <20040718072440.GA1267@vaio.glandium.org> <20040720155617.GK25798@sbcglobal.net> <20040720183256.A19064@macwheel.xs4all.nl> <20040720174106.GP25798@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <20040721180727.B20555@macwheel.xs4all.nl> --CdrF4e02JqNVZeln Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:41:06PM -0500, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote: > Geert Stappers (stappers@stappers.nl) wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 10:56:17AM -0500, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote: > > > Mike, > > >=20 > > > I'm getting a DB error: > > >=20 > > > > svn co svn+ssh://ardo@svn.debian.org/svn/debian-xml-sgml/packag= es/libxslt/trunk > > > svn: Berkeley DB error while opening environment for filesystem /= svn/debian-xml-sgml/db: > > > DB_RUNRECOVERY: Fatal error, run database recovery > > >=20 > >=20 > > $ host svn.debian.org > > svn.debian.org has address 192.25.206.28 > > $ host alioth.debian.org > > alioth.debian.org has address 192.25.206.28 > > $ > >=20 > > Contact alioth administrators when you keep getting the error. >=20 > ??? >=20 > I've got a suspicion that our SVN repository is hosed. It has happened b= efore. > So until I get confirmation from someone who knows SVN that our SVN repos= iyory > is indeed ok and it's indeed a host issues, I'm not going to bother the a= dmins. >=20 > Just running a couple of host command to find out which host hosts SVN do= esn't > mean anything to me. Sorry. Seems I had other information about Alioth's repution then others here have. >=20 > Thanks, > Ardo Cheers Geert Stappers --CdrF4e02JqNVZeln Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFA/pS/OSINbgwa/7sRApydAJ0f0TalZdQ6wPumrh4Ex7a3k+z3owCeLOV1 OQH2EaJvO3n+4Ljvs9KBnhI= =2HZX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --CdrF4e02JqNVZeln-- From Rafael Laboissiere Mon Jul 26 14:30:05 2004 From: Rafael Laboissiere (Rafael Laboissiere) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 15:30:05 +0200 Subject: [xml/sgml] Conflict between docbook-utils and docbook2x packages Message-ID: <20040726133005.GP9249@laboiss0> docbook2x and docbook-utils both provide programs called docbook2man and docbook2texi. Currently, the conflict is avoided by the docbook2x package, which renames the commands to docbook2x-man and docbook2x-texi (although the manpages still refer to the old names). The upstream author of docbook2X, Steve Cheng, suggested to me that the docbook2x package should be given priority over docbook-utils as regards the naming of the programs. The reason is simple: the docbook2man and docbook2texi commands in docbook-utils are based on old forks from docbook2X. The docbook2X programs are indeed superior to those from docbook-utils. I would suggest to simply drop the docbook2man and docbook2texi commands from docbook-utils. What do you think? -- Rafael From ardo@debian.org Tue Jul 27 01:32:33 2004 From: ardo@debian.org (Ardo van Rangelrooij) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 19:32:33 -0500 Subject: [xml/sgml] Conflict between docbook-utils and docbook2x packages In-Reply-To: <20040726133005.GP9249@laboiss0> References: <20040726133005.GP9249@laboiss0> Message-ID: <20040727003233.GA17432@sbcglobal.net> Rafael Laboissiere (rafael@debian.org) wrote: > docbook2x and docbook-utils both provide programs called docbook2man and > docbook2texi. Currently, the conflict is avoided by the docbook2x package, > which renames the commands to docbook2x-man and docbook2x-texi (although the > manpages still refer to the old names). > > The upstream author of docbook2X, Steve Cheng, suggested to me that the > docbook2x package should be given priority over docbook-utils as regards the > naming of the programs. The reason is simple: the docbook2man and > docbook2texi commands in docbook-utils are based on old forks from > docbook2X. The docbook2X programs are indeed superior to those from > docbook-utils. > > I would suggest to simply drop the docbook2man and docbook2texi commands > from docbook-utils. What do you think? This is also what I brought up in an earlier message on this list. This is one of the many issues with docbook-utils. If we want to go down this path we either have docbook-utils be depending on docbook2x to prevent breaking the packages that currently rely on dcobook-utils for these tools, or we have to have those package be (build) dependent directly on docbook2x. Also, we should comparing the output of both. If there are any differences we should people make aware of them, otherwise we'll be flooded by bug reports about this. Another approach is to break up docbook-utils into one-tool-packages with some common base package (and a meta package) with appropriate conflicts or maybe even diversions. Bottom line: I'm definitely in favour of giving our users the best tool there is for the job. If that means in this case that docbook-utils has to "suffer" so be it. Thanks, Ardo -- Ardo van Rangelrooij Debian XML/SGML Group

http://people.debian.org/~ardo/ http://debian-xml-sgml.alioth.debian.org/ From Rafael Laboissiere Tue Jul 27 03:04:58 2004 From: Rafael Laboissiere (Rafael Laboissiere) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 04:04:58 +0200 Subject: [xml/sgml] Conflict between docbook-utils and docbook2x packages In-Reply-To: <20040727003233.GA17432@sbcglobal.net> References: <20040726133005.GP9249@laboiss0> <20040727003233.GA17432@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <20040727020458.GA21312@laboiss0> * Ardo van Rangelrooij [2004-07-26 19:32]: > If we want to go down this path we either have docbook-utils be depending > on docbook2x to prevent breaking the packages that currently rely on > dcobook-utils for these tools, or we have to have those package be (build) > dependent directly on docbook2x. The former option seems easier to implement than the later one. > Also, we should comparing the output of both. I am afraid the problem is more complicated than just comparing the outputs. I think that the docbook2X suite currently only accepts XML inputs (Steve, please correct me if I am wrong). OTOH, the docbook-utils utilities accept SGML. Also, the invocations may differ, the options accepted may differ. > If there are any differences we should people make aware of them, otherwise > we'll be flooded by bug reports about this. >From my experience, we always get bug reports, regardless of the amount of effort we put in writing good README files. There will be no idiot-proof approach here, IMHO. > Another approach is to break up docbook-utils into one-tool-packages with > some common base package (and a meta package) with appropriate conflicts or > maybe even diversions. I would avoid this, since it seems an overkill. > Bottom line: I'm definitely in favour of giving our users the best tool > there is for the job. If that means in this case that docbook-utils has to > "suffer" so be it. Nice to hear that. -- Rafael From elmert@ipoline.com Tue Jul 27 18:59:35 2004 From: elmert@ipoline.com (Steve Cheng) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 13:59:35 -0400 Subject: [xml/sgml] Conflict between docbook-utils and docbook2x packages In-Reply-To: <20040727020458.GA21312@laboiss0> References: <20040726133005.GP9249@laboiss0> <20040727003233.GA17432@sbcglobal.net> <20040727020458.GA21312@laboiss0> Message-ID: <200407271359.35627.elmert@ipoline.com> On July 26, 2004 10:04 pm, Rafael Laboissiere wrote: > I am afraid the problem is more complicated than just comparing the > outputs. I think that the docbook2X suite currently only accepts XML inputs > (Steve, please correct me if I am wrong). True, and I've thought of a way to fix it: have an --sgml option that runs sgml2xml -xlower document.sgml 聽| sed -f sgml2xml.sed where sgml2xml.sed adds the appropriate XML doctype (for the ISO entities). The document might fail to validate with the DTD that is picked in sgml2xml.sed but this doesn't matter for stylesheets. It involves a conversion, but I think, nowadays, it is a bit unreasonable to expect that every {SG,X}ML tool must work with both SGML and XML "natively". I'll add this option to the next release of docbook2X. Anything else? > OTOH, the docbook-utils > utilities accept SGML. 聽 (and not XML.) > OTOH, the docbook-utils > utilities accept SGML. Also, the invocations may differ, the options > accepted may differ. Unfortunately I can't help you there (and requiring --sgml already breaks it). -- Steve Cheng 鄭君博 From Aaron.Hawley@uvm.edu Tue Jul 27 21:59:13 2004 From: Aaron.Hawley@uvm.edu (Aaron S. Hawley) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 16:59:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [xml/sgml] Conflict between docbook-utils and docbook2x packages In-Reply-To: <20040727003233.GA17432@sbcglobal.net> References: <20040726133005.GP9249@laboiss0> <20040727003233.GA17432@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 26 Jul 2004, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote: > Rafael Laboissiere (rafael@debian.org) wrote: > > docbook2x and docbook-utils both provide programs called docbook2man and > > docbook2texi. Currently, the conflict is avoided by the docbook2x package, > > which renames the commands to docbook2x-man and docbook2x-texi (although the > > manpages still refer to the old names). > > > > [clip] > > > > I would suggest to simply drop the docbook2man and docbook2texi commands > > from docbook-utils. What do you think? > > This is also what I brought up in an earlier message on this list. This is one > of the many issues with docbook-utils. > > If we want to go down this path we either have docbook-utils be > depending on docbook2x to prevent breaking the packages that currently > rely on dcobook-utils for these tools, or we have to have those package > be (build) dependent directly on docbook2x. Also, we should comparing > the output of both. If there are any differences we should people make > aware of them, otherwise we'll be flooded by bug reports about this. Hi, I'm an XML newbie and just *happened* to catch this thread by somehow stumpbling into this forum and then bumbling through the archives. Because of the command name mixup mentioned above, I came close to submitting a bug report which would be a duplicate of the following: jade:/usr/share/sgml/docbook/dtd/xml/4.2/docbookx.dtd:112:17:E: "X20AC" is not a function name http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=222058 i would have attributed my bug report to the docbook2X package and not the docbook-utils. So you may want to consider less the possibility of getting complaints from the worn-out SGML veteran users (perhaps these old poops exist, I wouldn't know) and worry more about being inundated by docbook-utils's bugs because of the confusion. aaron "moving along much better by typing docbook2x-texi" hawley /a From stappers@stappers.nl Tue Jul 27 23:46:22 2004 From: stappers@stappers.nl (Geert Stappers) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 00:46:22 +0200 Subject: [xml/sgml] Conflict between docbook-utils and docbook2x packages In-Reply-To: ; from Aaron.Hawley@uvm.edu on Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 04:59:13PM -0400 References: <20040726133005.GP9249@laboiss0> <20040727003233.GA17432@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <20040728004622.A32181@macwheel.xs4all.nl> --HcAYCG3uE/tztfnV Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable reassign 222058 docbook2x thanks On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 04:59:13PM -0400, Aaron S. Hawley wrote: > Hi, I'm an XML newbie and just *happened* to catch this thread by somehow > stumpbling into this forum and then bumbling through the archives. >=20 > Because of the command name mixup mentioned above, I came close to > submitting a bug report which would be a duplicate of the following: >=20 > jade:/usr/share/sgml/docbook/dtd/xml/4.2/docbookx.dtd:112:17:E: "X20AC" is > not a function name > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D222058 >=20 > i would have attributed my bug report to the docbook2X package and not the > docbook-utils. reassigned. >=20 > So you may want to consider less the possibility of getting complaints > from the worn-out SGML veteran users (perhaps these old poops exist, I > wouldn't know) and worry more about being inundated by docbook-utils's > bugs because of the confusion. >=20 > aaron "moving along much better by typing docbook2x-texi" hawley >=20 > /a >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Debian-xml-sgml-devel mailing list > Debian-xml-sgml-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/debian-xml-sgml-devel Geert Stappers --HcAYCG3uE/tztfnV Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFBBts+OSINbgwa/7sRApOSAKCeWtIcD4Q7KceTjOHv1gCNxfF6CgCgkqcH GCaPGI5KNRAa8fYEl4OMYaA= =md90 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --HcAYCG3uE/tztfnV-- From Rafael Laboissiere Wed Jul 28 14:57:28 2004 From: Rafael Laboissiere (Rafael Laboissiere) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 15:57:28 +0200 Subject: [xml/sgml] Conflict between docbook-utils and docbook2x packages In-Reply-To: <20040728004622.A32181@macwheel.xs4all.nl> References: <20040726133005.GP9249@laboiss0> <20040727003233.GA17432@sbcglobal.net> <20040728004622.A32181@macwheel.xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <20040728135728.GW9249@laboiss0> * Geert Stappers [2004-07-28 00:46]: > reassign 222058 docbook2x > thanks > > On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 04:59:13PM -0400, Aaron S. Hawley wrote: > > Hi, I'm an XML newbie and just *happened* to catch this thread by somehow > > stumpbling into this forum and then bumbling through the archives. > > > > Because of the command name mixup mentioned above, I came close to > > submitting a bug report which would be a duplicate of the following: > > > > jade:/usr/share/sgml/docbook/dtd/xml/4.2/docbookx.dtd:112:17:E: "X20AC" is > > not a function name > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=222058 > > > > i would have attributed my bug report to the docbook2X package and not the > > docbook-utils. > > reassigned. I fail to understand why this bug report has been reassigned to the docbook2x package. The error comes from the docbook2ps command, which has nothing to do with the docbook2x package. Perhaps I am missing something here? -- Rafael From Aaron.Hawley@uvm.edu Wed Jul 28 15:57:33 2004 From: Aaron.Hawley@uvm.edu (Aaron S. Hawley) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 10:57:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [xml/sgml] Conflict between docbook-utils and docbook2x packages In-Reply-To: <20040728132116.17161.72753.Mailman@haydn.debian.org> References: <20040728132116.17161.72753.Mailman@haydn.debian.org> Message-ID: On Wed, 28 Jul 2004, Geert Stappers wrote: > reassign 222058 docbook2x > thanks > > On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 04:59:13PM -0400, Aaron S. Hawley wrote: > > Hi, I'm an XML newbie and just *happened* to catch this thread by somehow > > stumpbling into this forum and then bumbling through the archives. > > > > Because of the command name mixup mentioned above, I came close to > > submitting a bug report which would be a duplicate of the following: > > > > jade:/usr/share/sgml/docbook/dtd/xml/4.2/docbookx.dtd:112:17:E: "X20AC" is > > not a function name > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D222058 > > > > i would have attributed my bug report to the docbook2X package and not the > > docbook-utils. but that would have been a mistake on my part. which now Geert has realized. Sorry to have created such a confused everyoene. Not my intention. which makes me think someone should now submit a bug report about this conflict between docbook-utils and docbook2X. /a > reassigned. From Aaron.Hawley@uvm.edu Thu Jul 29 18:13:13 2004 From: Aaron.Hawley@uvm.edu (Aaron S. Hawley) Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 13:13:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [xml/sgml] Conflict between docbook-utils and docbook2x packages In-Reply-To: <20040729162304.GZ9249@laboiss0> References: <20040728132116.17161.72753.Mailman@haydn.debian.org> <20040729162304.GZ9249@laboiss0> Message-ID: On Thu, 29 Jul 2004, Rafael Laboissiere wrote: > > but that would have been a mistake on my part. which now Geert has > > realized. Sorry to have created such a confused everyoene. Not my > > intention. > > Okay, I am completely confused now. Could you please tell me to which > package this bug report should be assigned? Rafael, you were right the first time, the bug belongs to docbook-utils because it is concerned with docbook2ps which is not part of docbook2X package. > > which makes me think someone should now submit a bug report about this > > conflict between docbook-utils and docbook2X. > > Well, there is no conflict right now. docbook-utils provides docbook2man > and docbook2texi, and docbook2X provides docbook2x-man and docbook2x-texi. > The later commands are superior to the former ones, though. where would a debian user know to use docbook2x-texi and docbook2x-man? this is what my manual pages says for docbook2X: docbook2X(1) docbook2X(1) NAME docbook2man, docbook2texi - Convert DocBook XML to man pages and Tex- info SYNOPSIS docbook2man [options] {xml-document} docbook2texi [options] {xml-document} ... that's the bug I think should be submitted. /a From stappers@stappers.nl Sat Jul 31 14:37:09 2004 From: stappers@stappers.nl (Geert Stappers) Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 15:37:09 +0200 Subject: [xml/sgml] Conflict between docbook-utils and docbook2x packages In-Reply-To: <20040728135728.GW9249@laboiss0>; from rafael@debian.org on Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 03:57:28PM +0200 References: <20040726133005.GP9249@laboiss0> <20040727003233.GA17432@sbcglobal.net> <20040728004622.A32181@macwheel.xs4all.nl> <20040728135728.GW9249@laboiss0> Message-ID: <20040731153709.H4109@macwheel.xs4all.nl> --l06SQqiZYCi8rTKz Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 03:57:28PM +0200, Rafael Laboissiere wrote: > * Geert Stappers [2004-07-28 00:46]: >=20 > > reassign 222058 docbook2x > > thanks > >=20 > > >=20 > > > i would have attributed my bug report to the docbook2X package and no= t the > > > docbook-utils. It was the above line that I misunderstood, sorry. > >=20 > > reassigned. >=20 > I fail to understand why this bug report has been reassigned to the > docbook2x package. The error comes from the docbook2ps command, which has > nothing to do with the docbook2x package. Perhaps I am missing something > here? You are doing fine (and I should do also ;-)=20 I saw that the bugreport is back again assigned to docbook-utils. My appology for making this noise. (Doing nothing at all is the best way to avoid errors) >=20 > --=20 > Rafael Cheers Geert Stappers --l06SQqiZYCi8rTKz Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFBC6CFOSINbgwa/7sRAj9hAJsEYakfwu1k6ccoN+TUWAvHxz/MRwCfRDwV 2gXVVxf670L0PQQ9bS6teT4= =99vc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --l06SQqiZYCi8rTKz-- From stappers@stappers.nl Sat Jul 31 14:51:49 2004 From: stappers@stappers.nl (Geert Stappers) Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 15:51:49 +0200 Subject: [xml/sgml] Conflict between docbook-utils and docbook2x packages In-Reply-To: ; from Aaron.Hawley@uvm.edu on Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 10:57:33AM -0400 References: <20040728132116.17161.72753.Mailman@haydn.debian.org> Message-ID: <20040731155149.I4109@macwheel.xs4all.nl> --vs0rQTeTompTJjtd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 10:57:33AM -0400, Aaron S. Hawley wrote: > On Wed, 28 Jul 2004, Geert Stappers wrote: >=20 > > reassign 222058 docbook2x > > thanks > > > > On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 04:59:13PM -0400, Aaron S. Hawley wrote: > > > i would have attributed my bug report to the docbook2X package and no= t the > > > docbook-utils. >=20 > but that would have been a mistake on my part. which now Geert has > realized. Sorry to have created such a confused everyoene. Not my > intention. No worries Mate! >=20 > which makes me think someone should now submit a bug report about this > conflict between docbook-utils and docbook2X. The only requirement for reporting a bug in Debian=20 is being able to sent a E-mail to submit@bugs.debian.org (see http://www.nl.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting for more information) So please report the bug your self, you may contact me off list if you need help on bugreporting. > /a Cheers Geert Stappers --vs0rQTeTompTJjtd Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFBC6P1OSINbgwa/7sRAulkAKCD3jW9Xa6LcRNV3S2rGWHb+d9oXwCghbMV R+tumnaa1xmAs/FlTVf/2Sc= =qWtY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --vs0rQTeTompTJjtd-- From mh@glandium.org Sat Jul 31 22:00:14 2004 From: mh@glandium.org (Mike Hommey) Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2004 06:00:14 +0900 Subject: [xml/sgml] [RFS] libxml2 new release Message-ID: <20040731210014.GA21033@vaio.glandium.org> Hi list, I have a new release for libxml2 ready for sponsorship. As usual, everything is in the svn (and awaiting to be taggued), and also available on my repository: http://glandium.org/debian/unstable/libxml2_2.6.11-3_i386.changes Thanks in advance for the sponsorship. Cheers, Mike