* Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have just subscribed to this list (at least, I think so, > since the confirm message was in what I believe is spanish, and that > is beyond my ken). Is there an archive of previous discussion on this > subject?
http://listas.conectiva.com.br/listas/docbook-tools > Could someone explain the rationale of embedding version > numbers in the directory structure, hance having the directory > structure change with each package upgrade, rather than having things > like /usr/share/sgml/jade-1.2.1/? You don't really want to replace a DTD or such with a newer one, you will still need them for applications that rely on them. "Upgrading" means *adding* new stuff here, not replacing older with newer versions. Therefore there have to be version numbers in the names. > I would also be interested in the reasons for hard coding > package names into a recommended standard. It seems to be me, perhaps > naively, that we would be better off specifying package agnostic > layouts like: > /usr/share/sgml/ > stylesheets/ > dtds/ > decls/ > entities/ > and let each vendor/distribution handle how individual packages > provide the files under each of the directories. We are thinking about a useful structure for this right now. One possibility would be to package this like that: /usr/share/sgml/ docbook-3.1/ dtd/ entities/ style-sheets/ images/ If now KDE wants to install it's own package for documentation converting, it could plug it in as this: /usr/share/sgml/ kde-1.2/ dtd/ entities/ style-sheets/ images/ This is just an idea and may be way too simple. > ps> please CC me on this discussion, since I am unsure of my > ps> confirmation actually succeeded. You have to reply to the confirmation message, have you done that? Jochem -- Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!
