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>