Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 12:49:12 -0400 From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> To: Stijn Hoop <stijn@win.tue.nl> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Second "RFC" on pkg-data idea for ports Message-ID: <p06020412bca1c605b2a2@[128.113.24.47]> In-Reply-To: <20040413062700.GA58667@pcwin002.win.tue.nl> References: <p0602040cbca10a7dbe52@[128.113.24.47]> <20040413062700.GA58667@pcwin002.win.tue.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 8:27 AM +0200 4/13/04, Stijn Hoop wrote: >On Mon, Apr 12, 2004, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > > What I'd like is some idea of whether this project is worth >> pursuing. > >Just a few comments from a quick drive-by reading: > >- it appears that your pkg-data format is in a language called > Not Quite XML -- I think your longterm goal is worth it, so > I'd suggest making it XML from the start. I probably would, if I was confident that I knew enough about XML that I would do it right. However, I have never really worked with XML, and it would take time for me to become an expert in XML. The more things I have to do to *start* this project, the more likely it is that this project will never be finished. I do not know enough about XML to say that I am *against* it, so if people want to tell me specific changes that I should make to the format, then I will certainly listen. As I said in one of the web pages, if everyone can *agree* on a better format for the pkg-data file, then I'll work to that. However, I do not want to spend six months *debating* the perfect format. If Joe says "You must do XXX", and Bill says "No, that NEVER works right, you must avoid XXX and do YYY", then I'm going to ignore everyone and stick to the format I that dreamed up. >- why not use separate <patch></patch> sections (or did I > miss that one)? I think you were reading a little too quickly. There is one over-all "patch section", and inside of that section are individual sections for each separate patch. I wanted the over-all patch section so I would know that "these are all the patches". I may want to change this somewhat, so I can better handle the ports which have EXTRA_PATCHES. I'm still trying to decide what would be the best way to do that. >- a tool to work with the pkg-data format with the options > you describe is a must -- in fact I'd go so far as to say > that I (as a ports maintainer) would like to test an > implementation of it before I can say whether it doesn't > disrupt my workflow too much. This is a fair request. Darren has already started writing the "PdHandlingProgram". > I infer it should still be possible to compile a port > without everything in a pkg-data file because otherwise > this would force me to add two invocations of your tool > before and after almost every step. I believe the web pages explicitly describes that. Somewhere. >In general I think it's an interesting idea. It depends on >maintainer/commiter buy-in ... This is certainly true! :-) -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p06020412bca1c605b2a2>