[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Splitting package xmlto - which way is better?

Paul W. Frields píše 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).

         Ondrej Vasik

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Toto je digitálně podepsaná část zprávy

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]