Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 07:32:34 -0500 From: Michael Lucas <mwlucas@blackhelicopters.org> To: Dima Dorfman <dima@trit.org> Cc: Nik Clayton <nik@FreeBSD.ORG>, doc@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: <port> replacement Message-ID: <20020220073234.B21306@blackhelicopters.org> In-Reply-To: <20020220094859.42B513E2F@bazooka.trit.org>; from dima@trit.org on Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 09:48:54AM %2B0000 References: <20020220094859.42B513E2F@bazooka.trit.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
<chirp> <chirp> Given how quick we are to abuse each others' work, that sounds like permission to me. Go for it, please! On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 09:48:54AM +0000, Dima Dorfman wrote: > Given the lack of noise, shall I assume that everybody is content with > the patches I posted and would like to see them committed? Unless I > hear otherwise, I plan to do just that in a few days. > > Thanks. > > I wrote: > > [ I'll try not to repeat what others have already said. ] > > > > Nik Clayton <nik@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > On Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 10:05:49AM +0000, Dima Dorfman wrote: > > > > I propose to replace the <port> tag with <filename> and a "role" > > > > attribute as follows: > > > > > > > > <filename role="package"> > > > > > > 1. Definitely 'package', not 'port'. Ports are just the infrastructure > > > that produce packages. > > > > Indeed; my change from "port" to "package" was deliberate. People > > have already given reasons for and against this, but my main > > motivation (which has only been mentioned in an off-hand manner) was > > that "port" is ambiguous; I can think of at least three different ways > > it can be interpreted in this context (TCP/UDP type ports, i386/alpha > > type ports, and cvsup/procmail type ports). Given that, as you [Nik] > > point out, FreeBSD is the only place where the definition we want is > > used, it probably isn't a good idea. If people are concerned with > > length (I haven't seen this brought up), we can use "pkg", but SGML > > isn't exactly known for being pithy. > > > > > 2. I have a nagging feeling that we should make sure the package's > > > category is included somewhere that DSSSL/XSLT stylesheets can > > > access it. > > > > > > <filename role="package">net/cvsup</filename> > > > > > > is less easy to parse (in a stylesheet) than something like > > > > > > <filename role="package" category="net">cvsup</filename> > > > > I don't really see how the category would be useful without the port > > name. Actually, the "net/" part of "net/cvsup" isn't exactly the > > category; it's the directory in which the port resides. net/cvsup is > > in `net' and `devel', but only `net/cvsup' would work in this case. > > Either way, I don't see how we could use the category. > > > > I guess I'm not really objecting to this, but rather I'm not sure it's > > worth the trouble. I can't see how it would help, and it adds more > > verbosity (as if there wasn't enough (I know SGML is verbose by > > nature, but I don't have to like it)). If [most] people disagree with > > me, I'll do the (trivial) work to make it happen. > > > > The second construct above is also ugly in that it adds a > > `role'-sensitive `category' attribute. It isn't really invalid, but > > it certainly isn't elegant. > > > > > We can always make these entities, something like > > > > > > &pkg.net.cvsup; > > > > I don't really have anything to add on this point except to point out > > that if we eventually decide to do this people will want to replace > > all occurances of '<filename role="package">' with entities at once, > > I'd rather only have to do one mass-commit (i.e., get it done right > > the first time). If, on the other hand, people would be content with > > having some documents (or parts of documents) use entities while > > others use <filename role=...> directly, I'd rather get everything > > converted to the latter for now and leave this discussion (and > > decision) for later. > > > > Thanks, everyone, for your comments. > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message -- Michael Lucas mwlucas@FreeBSD.org, mwlucas@BlackHelicopters.org my FreeBSD column: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/q/Big_Scary_Daemons http://www.blackhelicopters.org/~mwlucas/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020220073234.B21306>