On 15-12-10 03:08 PM, Andreas Boll wrote: > @Gaetan: > Do you still have a concern on the patch? > >> > The one thing that bugs me about the patch is that the version of >> > docbook may eventually be >> > no longer available and this macro must remain backward compatible for >> > eternity. > An alternate solution suggested by Helmut Grohne would be to simply add > <x></x> into conftest.xml.
I haven't touched this for years, but I noticed that backward compatibility with older versions of docbook is provided by the platform. I recall seeing some errors when a book required version 4.3, for example, could not be found because the latest installed version of docbook was 4.1. On the other end, I think requiring an older version (4.1 when 4.3 is installed) should cause no errors as platforms redirect the older version to the newer version of docbook as the platform wants to be backwards compatible. Note that only "point" versions are backward compatible, like 4.1 and 4.3, not 4.3 and 5.0. Version 5 is not backward compatible to version 4. However a simple document should work regardless. To be sure, one can test requesting a 4.3 document on a later platform where only version 5 is installed. The alternate solution seems ok. It should be tested on both version 4 and 5. It skips all the compatibility issues which are very difficult to sort out. That would save on service cost. For the xorg macro itself to remain backward compatible, I would suggest you keep the actual test, but if it fails, perform the new test you suggest (either the well formed 4.3 docbook or the <x></x>). This way we are certain not to introduce problems in older (very old) xorg tarballs that are compiled with the newer version of the xorg-macro. That's why the xorg macros must remain backward compatible for eternity. _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
