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: "Sergey A. Lipnevich" <sergeyli AT pisem.net>
  • To: Damien Mascord <tusker AT tusker.org>
  • Cc: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] url/md5/license fields proposal
  • Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 21:38:13 +0400 (MSD)

Damien Mascord <tusker AT tusker.org>:

> > >
> > > 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"
> > >
> >
> >I disagree. It's too big a change for almost no gain.
>
> I believe you do get a huge gain. Consistency,
readability, extensibility,
>
> and of course, much easier to parse.
>

It's as consistent as what we have, IMO, not more. It's
as readable as what we have. Why is it more extensible?
Until bash has double-dimensional arrays, any way will
be just a work around. The same is true about parsing.

Sorry I'm not being constructive ;-). If we start
implementing this, something else in the sorcery will
be backlogged. Internally, it's possible to even take
older DETAILS and convert it into this representation,
so that two versions can coexist, but is this the most
necessary addition to out feature list?

Sergey.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page