[xml/sgml-pkgs] docbook2x: collision with docbook-utils and common program-transform-name

[Peter Volkov]

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: distributions at lists.freedesktop.org May be we should
raise this problem there to try to get responses from other distributors
too?

-- 
Peter.