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

[Aaron S. Hawley]

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