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

[Jeremy C. Reed]

> 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.

I have been successfully using dblatex with the ARM (and manuals) for 
over five years (for print-ready book development using defaults and 
also with many customizations).  It is used to generate to TeX and then 
PDF. dblatex has active maintenance (and some of my suggestions have 
been implemented and most of my reported bugs have been fixed).

I think dblatex will work with the Docbook 5, but another solution is 
"fop" but I don't use that Java application. (We did some research with 
fop years ago and decided the output didn't look as nice with similar 
amount of effort.)

The internal ticket for switching to dblatex from db2latex is 19897, but 
it was closed due to not happening. (And for a different ISC project to 
use dblatex instead of fop or db2latex: 20688 and 21019.)

As for the other thread, a similar ticket is #35713 to have permanent 
id's for href links (like #option-forwarders instead of #id2583370).

I'd like to have all the grammar and option documentation machine 
generated then it could create id's easily as part of this, it would be 
organized and sorted nicely, grammar would match the code, and could 
complain when missing docs, for example.