Re: [docbook2X] docbook2x: collision with docbook-utils and common program-transform-name
Status: Beta
Brought to you by:
stevecheng
From: Peter V. <pv...@ge...> - 2008-05-31 12:45:36
|
Hello Daniel. I was waiting a bit for other opinions but still no answers... В Вск, 25/05/2008 в 14:02 +0200, Daniel Leidert пишет: > Am Mittwoch, den 21.05.2008, 12:19 +0400 schrieb Peter Volkov: > > There exists file collision between docbook-utils and > > docbook2x packages and that's why most distributions use > > --program-transform-name to make different naming of programs in > > docbook2x. Recently I've received bug report that our naming convention > > does not follow debian one. > > I have also an open bug report about the naming conflict: > http://bugs.debian.org/262990 Well we are not alone with this problem :) > > I've checked few other distributions and > > found that they use: > > > > AltLinux: --program-transform-name='s/docbook2/db2x_docbook2/' > > Redhat EL, Fedore: --program-transform-name='s/docbook2/db2x_docbook2/' > > Debian: --program-transform-name="s/^docbook2/docbook2x-/" > > OpenSuse: just moves files to docbook-to-man and docbook-to-texi > > Mandriva: does nothing > > Gentoo: --program-transform-name='s,\(docbook2.*\),\1.pl,' > > Thanks for that information. Unfortunately the Gentoo conventions would > conflict with our (Debian) guidelines (no script extensions in /usr/bin > and Co). But see my proposal at the end. Maybe we can handle this > without a script extension. Ok, then this is not a solution. > > So what I'm looking for is some consistent naming that we could agree on > > and ask upstream to add some notes into their package. > > I would love to have this issue fixed upstream. Your mail did not get mailing list so Steve could miss your mail thus I've added him to CC list now. > > Personally I like > > names which starts with the same name as original utility to simplify > > search of necessary tool in shell (with tab competition). But what do > > you think about this? What upstream can suggest? > > AFAIK, the docbook-utils (guess, that's the same as sgml-common-utils) Uh I've mixed names. Our package is called app-text/docbook-sgml-utils. But yes it's the same as docbook-utils. I've changed the subject to better reflect name. > forked the docbook2x programs. So normally they should change the name. > But the author is not active anymore. So Steve, are you willing to > change the name? Considering the fact, that docbook2x can and will > handle XML instead of just SGML (docbook-utils), what about simply > changing the name to > > docbookx2foo > ^ > > On the other side, the suite is called docbook2x, so also > > docbook2xfoo > ^ > would fit and not conflict with the docbook-utils. > > Opinions? I was not aware about pre-history of these packages. I'm curious now, why maintainers of didn't change names in docbook-utils? It seems rather hard (as too many packages depend on docbook-utils in Gentoo: http://tinderbox.dev.gentoo.org/misc/dindex/app-text/docbook-sgml-utils ) but still possible to change names in docbook-utils and naming is rather obvious, taking your suggestion as an example - docbooksgml2man and docbooksgml2texi as this package works with sgml only and only docbook2man and docbook2texi collide. What do you thing about this? On the other hand I have not problems with your suggestion... P.S. I've just found that there is a list for inter-distribution communication: dis...@li... May be we should raise this problem there to try to get responses from other distributors too? -- Peter. |