Re: Intent to package cygnus-stylesheets
On Tue, 19 Jan 1999 04:52:44 -0500, Adam Di Carlo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > After comparing the sources closely, I don't think they have forked > the sources. All the diffs in the *actual* stylesheets are either > CVS stuff changing, since they reimported norm's stuff, or > side-effects based on the fact that they regenerate the > documentation. I lied, there's about 20 lines of difference in the Cygnus version. I basically just ignored this for the -1 verision. > I'll try to upload my deb within 48 hours, ok? Uploaded, and tested with some of my own docbook sgml stuff. Someone who requires db2html etc should test these though. And yes, I'm still morally offended by the db2* scripts. Icky. -- .Adam Di [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.onShore.com/>
Re: Intent to package cygnus-stylesheets
Adam Di Carlo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > >Adam Di Carlo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> >Essentially, Cygnus has forked the code. > >> > >> Huh. > > > >That might be a bit strong - I haven't really looked into the > >differences in depth. They are being maintained separately, and they > >are tracking Norm Walsh's stuff. > > After comparing the sources closely, I don't think they have > forked the sources. All the diffs in the *actual* stylesheets > are either CVS stuff changing, since they reimported norm's > stuff, or side-effects based on the fact that they regenerate > the documentation. > > This is better than I thought. It looks like cynus-stylesheets > can just *depend* on docbook stylesheets and I'll be happy and > gnome will be happy and all will be good. > > *phew*! Good to hear that. > I'll try to upload my deb within 48 hours, ok? Sounds good. Cheers, - Jim
Re: Intent to package cygnus-stylesheets
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: >Adam Di Carlo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >Essentially, Cygnus has forked the code. >> >> Huh. > >That might be a bit strong - I haven't really looked into the >differences in depth. They are being maintained separately, and they >are tracking Norm Walsh's stuff. After comparing the sources closely, I don't think they have forked the sources. All the diffs in the *actual* stylesheets are either CVS stuff changing, since they reimported norm's stuff, or side-effects based on the fact that they regenerate the documentation. This is better than I thought. It looks like cynus-stylesheets can just *depend* on docbook stylesheets and I'll be happy and gnome will be happy and all will be good. *phew*! I'll try to upload my deb within 48 hours, ok? -- .Adam Di [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.onShore.com/>
Re: Intent to package cygnus-stylesheets
Adam Di Carlo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > >Adam Di Carlo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> I understand that Gnome needs db2* scripts... why do they need the Cygnus > >> stylesheets? > > > >They use them internally at Cygnus for their documentation. They are > >unsupported for outside use. > > > >Don't ask me why Gnome decided to use them. I suppose it's because > >Mark Galassi is helping out with the docs. > > Well, I hope it has a license that enables redistribution. License? You wish. :-) It's mostly Norm Walsh's stuff, but the license should be clarified for Mark's additions. > >> To be honest, there's absolutely no reason the two forks of the > >> stylesheets have to conflict. They should be able to co-exist fine. > > > >The only reason I made them conflict is because they both register > >Norm Walsh's stylesheets. > > That is evil evil evil and I can't tolerate that, no matter what > RedHat does. I'm going to have to track down Mark and slap > him into next week for doing that. I hope you don't mind if I don't > support such broken behavior in the debian package. I don't mind. Maybe he hasn't changed much... > But I'm happy to package it; it should be almost > identical in the debian/* as docbook-stylesheets. I was in a rush, so I used the same layout as Red Hat. I just copied the installation stuff out of the spec file (since there is no Makefile). I like your stuff better, but his source package is arranged differently, and I didn't want to have to debug things. > >I'm not sure how much Cygnus tweaked their > >version. It could be quite a bit since they are using it for internal > >use. Maybe there would be little difference if we used the "real" > >Norm Walsh ones instead? Unfortunately, I don't have enough time to > >experiment at the moment. > > > >I've put the package up at: > > > > ftp://ftp.jimpick.com/pub/tmp/adam/ > > > >I didn't put a lot of effort into it. I just tried to get it to work > >like the RPM does. > > I'll need someone with an 'in' on the gnome > team to tell me if my package is doing the right thing, since the > point is gnome, not mimicing the .rpm. > > This is for potato, of course, right? Yep. Cheers, - Jim
Re: Intent to package cygnus-stylesheets
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: >Adam Di Carlo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I understand that Gnome needs db2* scripts... why do they need the Cygnus >> stylesheets? > >They use them internally at Cygnus for their documentation. They are >unsupported for outside use. > >Don't ask me why Gnome decided to use them. I suppose it's because >Mark Galassi is helping out with the docs. Well, I hope it has a license that enables redistribution. >> To be honest, there's absolutely no reason the two forks of the >> stylesheets have to conflict. They should be able to co-exist fine. > >The only reason I made them conflict is because they both register >Norm Walsh's stylesheets. That is evil evil evil and I can't tolerate that, no matter what RedHat does. I'm going to have to track down Mark and slap him into next week for doing that. I hope you don't mind if I don't support such broken behavior in the debian package. But I'm happy to package it; it should be almost identical in the debian/* as docbook-stylesheets. >I'm not sure how much Cygnus tweaked their >version. It could be quite a bit since they are using it for internal >use. Maybe there would be little difference if we used the "real" >Norm Walsh ones instead? Unfortunately, I don't have enough time to >experiment at the moment. > >I've put the package up at: > > ftp://ftp.jimpick.com/pub/tmp/adam/ > >I didn't put a lot of effort into it. I just tried to get it to work >like the RPM does. I'll need someone with an 'in' on the gnome team to tell me if my package is doing the right thing, since the point is gnome, not mimicing the .rpm. This is for potato, of course, right? -- .A. P. [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.onShore.com/>
Re: Intent to package cygnus-stylesheets
Adam Di Carlo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >Essentially, Cygnus has forked the code. > > Huh. That might be a bit strong - I haven't really looked into the differences in depth. They are being maintained separately, and they are tracking Norm Walsh's stuff. > I understand that Gnome needs db2* scripts... why do they need the Cygnus > stylesheets? They use them internally at Cygnus for their documentation. They are unsupported for outside use. Don't ask me why Gnome decided to use them. I suppose it's because Mark Galassi is helping out with the docs. > >> Please patch from the potato docbook-stylesheets if you could. > > > >You are asking me to merge two upstream packages which have forked. > >That's a big job. People have been jumping up and down on me for > >weeks to get Gnome out. > > Maybe you could point me to the sources and I could whip it up pretty > quick. Or give me what you're working on. That would be great! > To be honest, there's absolutely no reason the two forks of the > stylesheets have to conflict. They should be able to co-exist fine. The only reason I made them conflict is because they both register Norm Walsh's stylesheets. I'm not sure how much Cygnus tweaked their version. It could be quite a bit since they are using it for internal use. Maybe there would be little difference if we used the "real" Norm Walsh ones instead? Unfortunately, I don't have enough time to experiment at the moment. I've put the package up at: ftp://ftp.jimpick.com/pub/tmp/adam/ I didn't put a lot of effort into it. I just tried to get it to work like the RPM does. Cheers, - Jim
Re: Intent to package cygnus-stylesheets
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: >Adam Di Carlo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I thought they needed this db2* scriptage. The db2* scripts kinda >> suck if you ask me (and not comment from upstream on my specific >> technical arguments why they suck) but I'm happy to include them. >> Please just patch! > >The Cygnus stylesheets differ by much more than just db2* scripts. > >On the Norm Walsh portion of the tree (only about half the package), >diffstat says: > > 376 files changed, 50652 insertions, 735 deletions > >Essentially, Cygnus has forked the code. Huh. I understand that Gnome needs db2* scripts... why do they need the Cygnus stylesheets? >> >Perhaps it can be merged with docbook-stylesheets? Right now, it's >> >set up to conflict with that package. The packaging is relatively >> >crude in comparison, because I needed to get it out in a hurry. >> >> I'd rather if you just sent me patches. That would seem easier for all >> than creating a package then abandoning it. Obsolete pacakges tend >> to pile up on users' boxes. >> >> Please patch from the potato docbook-stylesheets if you could. > >You are asking me to merge two upstream packages which have forked. >That's a big job. People have been jumping up and down on me for >weeks to get Gnome out. Maybe you could point me to the sources and I could whip it up pretty quick. Or give me what you're working on. To be honest, there's absolutely no reason the two forks of the stylesheets have to conflict. They should be able to co-exist fine. -- .A. P. [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.onShore.com/>
Re: Intent to package cygnus-stylesheets
Adam Di Carlo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > >Soon, I'm going to upload a "cygnus-stylesheets" package. It's > >basically the same thing as the docbook-stylesheets package, but it > >has some modifications and additional hacks that Mark Galassi has > >added. > > > >This package is based on the same source as what the Red Hat people > >are using. The Gnome project documentation uses this package - that > >is why I had to make it. > > I thought they needed this db2* scriptage. The db2* scripts kinda > suck if you ask me (and not comment from upstream on my specific > technical arguments why they suck) but I'm happy to include them. > Please just patch! The Cygnus stylesheets differ by much more than just db2* scripts. On the Norm Walsh portion of the tree (only about half the package), diffstat says: 376 files changed, 50652 insertions, 735 deletions Essentially, Cygnus has forked the code. > >As soon as I upload it, I'd like to put it up for adoption. > > Ick. Slash-n-burn? I don't have time to maintain it. > >Perhaps it can be merged with docbook-stylesheets? Right now, it's > >set up to conflict with that package. The packaging is relatively > >crude in comparison, because I needed to get it out in a hurry. > > I'd rather if you just sent me patches. That would seem easier for all > than creating a package then abandoning it. Obsolete pacakges tend > to pile up on users' boxes. > > Please patch from the potato docbook-stylesheets if you could. You are asking me to merge two upstream packages which have forked. That's a big job. People have been jumping up and down on me for weeks to get Gnome out. Cheers, - Jim
Re: Intent to package cygnus-stylesheets
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: >Soon, I'm going to upload a "cygnus-stylesheets" package. It's >basically the same thing as the docbook-stylesheets package, but it >has some modifications and additional hacks that Mark Galassi has >added. > >This package is based on the same source as what the Red Hat people >are using. The Gnome project documentation uses this package - that >is why I had to make it. I thought they needed this db2* scriptage. The db2* scripts kinda suck if you ask me (and not comment from upstream on my specific technical arguments why they suck) but I'm happy to include them. Please just patch! >As soon as I upload it, I'd like to put it up for adoption. Ick. Slash-n-burn? >Perhaps it can be merged with docbook-stylesheets? Right now, it's >set up to conflict with that package. The packaging is relatively >crude in comparison, because I needed to get it out in a hurry. I'd rather if you just sent me patches. That would seem easier for all than creating a package then abandoning it. Obsolete pacakges tend to pile up on users' boxes. Please patch from the potato docbook-stylesheets if you could. -- .A. P. [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.onShore.com/>
