FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 07-14-2008, 11:32 AM
Ondřej Vašík
 
Default Splitting package xmlto - which way is better?

Hello,
I would like to ask you about splitting package xmlto.
I got request to split xmlto package to throw away passivetex (and TeX)
requirements in the case of xmlto usage for building txt/html
documentation (rhbz #454341). This change is reasonable, but I'm not
sure which way is better. Generally I have two possibilities:

1) Split to xmlto and xmlto-base - with xmlto Requires: xmlto-base . In
xmlto-base all binaries, documentation and backends without passivetex
requirements. Main package will contain only three backends (fo to
dvi/ps/pdf) after that change. This will not break any builds in Fedora
Rawhide but raises rpmlint warnings about no binary/documentation in
main package.
2) Split to xmlto and xmlto-tex . This will break builds which are using
xmlto for building pdf/ps/dvi documentation - additional BuildRequires
for xmlto-tex backends subpackage will be required.

Which one should be preferred?

I like the possibility #1 a bit more, although I guess in long-term is
#2 better solution. Any other ideas?

Thanks in advance for reactions.

Greetings,
Ondrej Vasik
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 07-14-2008, 12:01 PM
"Paul W. Frields"
 
Default Splitting package xmlto - which way is better?

On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 13:32 +0200, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ond=3Fej_Va=3F=EDk_
wrote:
> Hello,
> I would like to ask you about splitting package xmlto.
> I got request to split xmlto package to throw away passivetex (and TeX)
> requirements in the case of xmlto usage for building txt/html
> documentation (rhbz #454341). This change is reasonable, but I'm not
> sure which way is better. Generally I have two possibilities:
>
> 1) Split to xmlto and xmlto-base - with xmlto Requires: xmlto-base . In
> xmlto-base all binaries, documentation and backends without passivetex
> requirements. Main package will contain only three backends (fo to
> dvi/ps/pdf) after that change. This will not break any builds in Fedora
> Rawhide but raises rpmlint warnings about no binary/documentation in
> main package.
> 2) Split to xmlto and xmlto-tex . This will break builds which are using
> xmlto for building pdf/ps/dvi documentation - additional BuildRequires
> for xmlto-tex backends subpackage will be required.
>
> Which one should be preferred?
>
> I like the possibility #1 a bit more, although I guess in long-term is
> #2 better solution. Any other ideas?

I think #2 is definitely the better way to go. The passivetex stuff for
building the PDF format, in my experience, has been fragile at best for
some time. Although fop is getting closer to usable, and could end up
being used by the xmlto scripts for PDF building in the future, it's not
there yet -- and when it is, the fop package will also drag in a lot of
Java package deps.

--
Paul W. Frields
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://paul.frields.org/ - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 07-14-2008, 01:43 PM
Ondřej Vašík
 
Default Splitting package xmlto - which way is better?

Paul W. Frields p*še v Po 14. 07. 2008 v 08:01 -0400:
> On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 13:32 +0200, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ond=3Fej_Va=3F=EDk_
> wrote:
> > 2) Split to xmlto and xmlto-tex . This will break builds which are using
> > xmlto for building pdf/ps/dvi documentation - additional BuildRequires
> > for xmlto-tex backends subpackage will be required.
> I think #2 is definitely the better way to go. The passivetex stuff for
> building the PDF format, in my experience, has been fragile at best for
> some time. Although fop is getting closer to usable, and could end up
> being used by the xmlto scripts for PDF building in the future, it's not
> there yet -- and when it is, the fop package will also drag in a lot of
> Java package deps.

Ok, thanks, you are right, will use #2. Therefore those who rely on
xmlto while building pdf/ps/dvi documentation during koji build, please
add xmlto-tex BuildRequires.
Just want to say that xmlto scripts already have support for fop/dblatex
(but dblatex brings requirements for TeX packages as well and fop's
requirements for Java packages are maybe even more expensive) - but
passivetex is still considered as default. When option --extensions is
specified, PDF building with passivetex is much better (although you are
right that not perfect).

Greetings,
Ondrej Vasik
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:39 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org