[PATCH] configure.in: Add Debian paths for docbook_xsl_trees, db2latex_xsl_trees

[Robert Edmonds]

Evan Hunt wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:48:10PM -0400, edmonds at mycre.ws wrote:
> > From: Robert Edmonds <edmonds at mycre.ws>
> > 
> > 'configure' on a Debian box (and without specifying --with-docbook-xsl=...)
> > produces the following output:
> 
> By some odd coincidence I was just playing with the doc generation
> system today, thinking it would be nice to update to something newer,
> and I encountered this exact problem and was getting ready to merge
> your exact proposed change.

Nice!

> > I'm not sure what the "db2latex xsl figures" check is looking for.  It
> > appears to be looking for a dblatex-related directory which contains a
> > "figures/" subdirectory, which doesn't appear to exist in the Debian
> > archive. Possibly XSLT_DB2LATEX_ADMONITIONS should end up getting a
> > value like "/usr/share/xml/docbook/stylesheet/dblatex/xsl/admon.xsl".
> > I've left that check alone.
> 
> It's looking for the DB2LaTeX XSL style sheets, available at
> http://db2latex.sourceforge.net/.
> 
> Debian doesn't package these, I don't know why not. (I'm pretty
> sure there used to be a db2latex-xsl package that included them, but
> it's gone now.)  Extracting the tarball into /usr/local/share/db2latex
> seems to get the job done though.

Ah, my brain must have glossed over the difference between dblatex and
db2latex.

On the Debian side, the db2latex-xsl package was removed in 2006:

    https://bugs.debian.org/396238
    https://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2006/10/msg00539.html

At the time, dblatex was noted as a "nearly drop-in replacement" for
db2latex.  However, dblatex's manual currently notes that it has evolved
significantly:

    Dblatex started as a DB2LaTeX clone, but since then many things have
    changed and new features have been added or (hopefully) improved.
    Now, the portion of shared code is small if any, and the dblatex
    purpose is different from DB2LaTeX on these points: [...]

Fedora also ships dblatex instead of db2latex, which means most Linux
boxes (Debian/Ubuntu/Fedora/RHEL/CentOS/etc.) won't have a package of
dblatex available.

FreeBSD ships both textproc/dblatex and textproc/db2latex in their ports
system.

I'm not sure how hard it would be to convert from db2latex to dblatex.
What is dblatex used for in the BIND documentation?  Is it just for
generating .tex, which is then converted to PDF?  If so, it might make
sense to convert from DocBook 4 to DocBook 5 instead, so that DocBook
can directly generate both the HTML and PDF formats.  That would allow
dropping the dependency on db2latex completely.

-- 
Robert Edmonds