Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] url/md5/license fields proposal

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Robert Helgesson <rycee AT home.se>
  • To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] url/md5/license fields proposal
  • Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 06:41:26 +0200

On Sat, Jul 20, 2002 at 08:47:21PM -0700, Eric Sandall wrote:
> Robert Helgesson said:
> > I would like to propose the following format for the SOURCE_URL, MD5
> > and LICENSE fields of a DETAILS file.
> >
> > SOURCE_URL[0]="source1_url1
> > source1_url2"
> > MD5[0]=source1_md5
> > LICENSE[0]=source1_license
> > SOURCE_URL[1]="source2_url1
> > source2_url2
> > source2_url3"
> > MD5[1]=source2_md5
> > LICENSE[1]="source2_license1 source2_license2"
>
> This is fairly similar to Gentoo's format, is it not?

I don't know, never seen it. This format is pretty much just another way
of writing the current format.

> Also, this format does seem nice, though I'd rather rearrange a
> little.
> SOURCE_URL[0]="source1_url1
> SOURCE_URL[0]="source1_url1
> source2_url1"
> MD5[0]=source1_md5
> LICENSE[0]=source1_license
> SOURCE_URL[1]="source1_url2
> source2_url2"
> MD5[1]=source2_md5
> LICENSE[1]="source2_license1 source2_license2"
>
> -One of Three

I prefer the first one. Using this format looses the *mostly*
compatible form of the first one so a greater number of changes to the
current code have to be made. Also it looses the easy to see
distinction between different sources. I think it's best if everything
related to the first source file is in variables suffixed with [0] and
so on, mixing will only result in confusion and no apparent advantage.

/rycee




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page