Re: [xml2rfc] New xml2rfc release: 2.3.11

[Henrik Levkowetz <[e-mail]>]

Hi Elwyn,

On 2013-01-20 23:42 Elwyn Davies said:
> Hi.
> 
> I just tried out 2.3.11.3 installation (after my problems with 2.3.10 
> yesterday - tickets 97/98).
> Seems to have fixed some of the problems - pip installation now works 
> (more or less).
> I take it that lxml version 3.x is not kosher for xml2rfc since you 
> exclude it now... lxml 3.1beta1 downloaded and compiled Ok yesterday but 
> I now have 2.3.6 for use with xml2rfc 2.3.11.x

I excluded 3.x because I hadn't tested xml2rfc with it, and didn't want
to do a release which pronounced it to be OK even if there might be
problems with it.

Assuming testing works, I'll allow it in the next release (but it looks
like I might have to exclude the 3.1 beta if they don't have the dependency
list in order)

> BTW
> the machine here is running
> Ubuntu 10.04 on an old ASUS EEE-PC 1000 (Atom processor)
> Python 2.6
> setuptools 0.8
> distutils 2.6.5
> 
> 
> Both
> sudo python setup.py install
> and
> sudo pip install xml2rfc --upgrade
> 
> work more or less as expected.  There are 3 minor issues;
> 1. The internal version of the version in the 2.3.11.3 package still 
> reports itself as 2.3.11.1 with xml2rfc --version

Right, I was a bit hurried with the 2.3.11.x minor releases, so missed
updating the version in one place.

> 2. If you don't have libxml2 and libxslt dev packages installed on 
> Ubuntu lxml won't compile.

Hm.  That's probably a bug in lxml's build dependencies, then.  I don't
know if  I should put in a guard for that in xml2rfc (I really shouldn't,
but might still do so it temporarily as a workaround).

> 3.  There are still some minor issues with the install... transcript of 
> pip install beloe:
>   sudo pip install xml2rfc --upgrade
> Downloading/unpacking xml2rfc
>    Running setup.py egg_info for package xml2rfc
>      warning: no files found matching 'README.*'

Right.  Already fixed in my sourcetree.

... <<snip>>

> Successfully installed xml2rfc
> 
> Seems to work basically, BUT found a few slight differences with this 
> version.
> - centre field in footer is one character leftwards of 1.35 version

Yes.  I can't make it come out exactly as 1.35 because of different
handling of centering in odd vs. even field widths, unless I override
Python's string centering, which I think is silly.

> - hangindent=15 produces slightly different answers -- more white space 
> between label and rest of text

Ah.  I'll have a look at that.

> - Reporting a reference not found as an 'IDREF not found' when it isn't 
> an I-D is confusing.

Could you send me sample source for that, please?

> Will do a proper report shortly.

Ah, ok; thanks!

> Found a problem with an slightly old and very complicated draft that 
> doesn't work in either 1.35 or 2.3.11.3 (in similar ways). Probably 
> something to do with
> <!ENTITY % rfc2629 PUBLIC "" 
> "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2629.xml">
> which used to work when
>   http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-irtf-routing-reqs-11.xml was published 
> back in February 2009 but no longer
> finds a number of the RFC references after the 3 described with PUBLIC 
> (which seem to be found) and the rest are described with SYSTEM.

Ok.

> I am away from home and don't have access to an old xml2rfc to check 
> that the old draft compiled on the old xml2rfc.

Ok.


Thanks for the report!


Best regards,

	Henrik