sm-grimoire AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Discussion of Spells and Grimoire items
List archive
- From: Dufflebunk <dufflebunk AT dufflebunk.homeip.net>
- To: Duane Malcolm <d.malcolm AT auckland.ac.nz>
- Cc: Seth Woolley <seth AT tautology.org>, Grimoire <sm-grimoire AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [SM-Grimoire] new section office?
- Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 01:36:47 -0000
There was KEYWORD support in DETAILS, but it wasn't used and slowed down
gaze search, so I removed it. I'd never heard of it when I took it out,
and no spell used it.
On Wed, 2003-09-03 at 18:00, Duane Malcolm wrote:
> Seth Woolley wrote:
>
> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >Hash: SHA1
> >
> >"Flat trees" are bad. Heirarchy is good for section gurus and assigning
> >responsibility. Having additional sections specified in DETAILS would
> >be OK, but symlinks would be even better (a unixism). The filesystem is
> >like a database. No reason not to use it as one, especially if you use
> >reiserfs. If perforce doesn't support symlinks, then I can see:
> >ADDITIONAL_SECTIONS[0]=
> >ADDITIONAL_SECTIONS[1]=
> >...
> >
> >but I would consider that a dirty hack.
> >
> I don't think a flat tree is necessary. You may like to use KEYWORDS
> instead of ADDITIONAL_SECTION which would allow a simple method to add
> simple keywords to be searched for, such as "office".
>
> >I don't like data duplication, so I would prefer even SPELL= removed and
> >have us depend on the filesystem location instead.
> >
> I don't know enough to make comment on using the filesystem vs file text.
>
> >
> >gaze search makes this almost a non-issue ... just adding my preference.
> >
> >Seth
> >
> >On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, Duane Malcolm wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>One thing that impressed me about the recent sorcerer implementation was
> >>that they had a flat grimoire tree, ie, no sections, the section was
> >>defined through a "SECTION" tag in the DEATILS file. The beauty of this
> >>sytem was that you can have a spell in multiple sections. For example,
> >>gnome-pilot would have "SECTION=mobile,gnome,gnome1-apps,gnome2-apps",
> >>abiword would have "SECTION=office,gnome,gnome1-apps" and abiword2 would
> >>have "SECTION=office,gnome,gnome2-apps".
> >>
> >>This means gaze section office would give abiword, abiword2 etc..., gaze
> >>section gnome would give gnome-pilot,abiword,abiword2,etc...
> >>
> >>I know this means changes. I don't think the flat tree is a requirement
> >>but I think it would be nicer.
> >>
> >>This would solve a number of issues in the past.
> >>
> >>Open for dicussion.
> >>
> >>Duane.
> >>
> >>Geoffrey Derber wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>I was thinking about possibly creating a new section for 'office'
> >>>related spells. The new openoffice spell (if we get it working), has
> >>>been put in editors, and while swriter may fit in there okay, the
> >>>whole suite does not. So I was thinking put spells like openoffice,
> >>>koffice, abiword, gnumeric, gnucash, siag, etc. in there.
> >>>
> >>>Thoughts, comments,
> >>>
> >>>Geoff
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>_______________________________________________
> >>>SM-Grimoire mailing list
> >>>SM-Grimoire AT lists.ibiblio.org
> >>>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-grimoire
> >>>
> >>>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>SM-Grimoire mailing list
> >>SM-Grimoire AT lists.ibiblio.org
> >>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-grimoire
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >- --
> >Seth Alan Woolley <seth at tautology.org>, SPAM/UCE is unauthorized
> >Key id 7BEACC7D = 2978 0BD1 BA48 B671 C1EB 93F7 EDF4 3CDF 7BEA CC7D
> >Full Key at seth.tautology.org and pgp.mit.edu. info: www.gnupg.org
> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (FreeBSD)
> >
> >iD8DBQE/Vl7h7fQ833vqzH0RAtM9AKCQL1A3Zhb9JESQEiRb4MqTkF3smACfZaPZ
> >mbEDmcUBhBuuw42u/QGkv0k=
> >=yx2D
> >-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >SM-Grimoire mailing list
> >SM-Grimoire AT lists.ibiblio.org
> >http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-grimoire
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> SM-Grimoire mailing list
> SM-Grimoire AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-grimoire
-
[SM-Grimoire] new section office?,
Geoffrey Derber, 09/03/2003
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] new section office?,
Duane Malcolm, 09/03/2003
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] new section office?,
Seth Woolley, 09/03/2003
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] new section office?,
Duane Malcolm, 09/03/2003
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] new section office?,
Dufflebunk, 09/03/2003
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] new section office?,
Geoffrey Derber, 09/03/2003
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] new section office?,
Jason Flatt, 09/03/2003
- Re: [SM-Grimoire] new section office?, Hamish Greig, 09/03/2003
- Re: [SM-Grimoire] new section office?, Geoffrey Derber, 09/04/2003
- Re: [SM-Grimoire] new section office?, Eric Sandall, 09/04/2003
- Re: [SM-Grimoire] new section office?, Justin Rocha, 09/04/2003
- Re: [SM-Grimoire] new section office?, Jason Flatt, 09/04/2003
- Re: [SM-Grimoire] new section office?, Robin Cook, 09/05/2003
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] new section office?,
Jason Flatt, 09/03/2003
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] new section office?,
Geoffrey Derber, 09/03/2003
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] new section office?,
Dufflebunk, 09/03/2003
- Re: [SM-Grimoire] new section office?, Geoffrey Derber, 09/04/2003
- Re: [SM-Grimoire] new section office?, Jose Bernardo Silva, 09/04/2003
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] new section office?,
Duane Malcolm, 09/03/2003
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] new section office?,
Seth Woolley, 09/03/2003
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] new section office?,
Duane Malcolm, 09/03/2003
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.