Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 20 Feb 2002 09:48:54 +0000
From:      Dima Dorfman <dima@trit.org>
To:        Nik Clayton <nik@freebsd.org>, doc@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: <port> replacement 
Message-ID:  <20020220094859.42B513E2F@bazooka.trit.org>

next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020220094859.42B513E2F>