About the future format for LFS (reworded)

Matthew Burgess matthew at linuxfromscratch.org
Sun Sep 7 01:15:39 PDT 2008

On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 17:23:38 -0400, William Immendorf <computerperson1 at live.com> wrote:
> DocBook V5.0 offers new functionality. DocBook V5.0 provides significant
> improvements over DocBook V4.x. For example there is general markup for
> annotations, a new and flexible system for linking, and unified markup for
> information sections using the info element.

Agreed, and this is why we normally upgrade to the latest version of DocBook when time permits.  And this is why I wouldn't have any problems in committing patches on someone's behalf that upgrade the book to DocBook-XML 5.0.
> DocBook V5.0 is easier to customize. RELAX NG offers many powerful
> constructs that make customization much easier than it would be using a DTD
> (see the section called “Customizing DocBook V5.0”)."

But the crucial point you're not making clear is *why* does LFS require that customization feature?  What is it you think LFS will gain by such customization?  And why can that not be gained without the customization feature of RNG?



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list