On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 04:54:01PM -0400, Thomas Porter wrote:
> I am happy to hear LyX 1.0.4 is out. Thanks to all for great work.
>
> I have been interested in the DocBook support, and I understand it needs
> sgml-tools v2.0. I use Red Hat, thus RPM. Can anyone tell me where to find
> sgml-tools 2.0 RPMS? Or where to get SGML-tools v2.0 in any form?
ftp://ftp.nllgg.nl/pub/sgmltools/
There you have a cvs source made into rpm.
The only reason why this isn't the 2.0.3 sgmltools is because the package
maintainer doesn't have time.
Beware also that this will conflict with sgmltools v1.0
You can force it, since I don't need sgmltools anymore I have
erased sgmltools v1.0 and installed this version.
> Also I do not understand if sgml-tools v2.0 is backwards compatible with
> Linux-doc as supported by sgml-tools 1.0. Do Ineed both to support Linux-doc
> and Doc-book?
No and No. :) They are totally different projects, and I don't need to support
both linuxdoc and docbook (unless you need or want to ;-)
> Finally, I am using the Doc-book rpms from rosalia, with the DTD's and jade
> stuff. Do I need these instead of or in addition to sgml-tools v2.0?
No sgmltools is a wrapper for docbook, jade, and several other packages,
(that come with the rosalia rpm). It makes easier to use the produce output.
As an example
* with rosalia rpm you do
jade -d /usr/lib/sgml/stylesheets/dbtohtml.dsl \
-t sgml myfile.sgml \
myfile.html
while with sgmltools the same task is accomplished with
sgmtools -b html myfile
I hope you see the difference ;)
> Sorry for so many questions but I have been beating myself up trying to master
> Linux-doc and DocBook and I would really like to be able to use both without
> too much pain.
Who don't? ;)
> --
> Tom Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament],
> 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will
> the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the
> kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
Hope this helps.
--
José
