[xml/sgml] Conflict between docbook-utils and docbook2x packages

Rafael Laboissiere Rafael Laboissiere <rafael@debian.org>
Tue, 27 Jul 2004 04:04:58 +0200


* Ardo van Rangelrooij <ardo@debian.org> [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