Re: On compilers, VM's, etc. (Was: Next app.: Doc. Policy)
Raul Miller writes:
> > source tends to refer to human-authored documents, compiled refers to
> > machine translations of those documents. Don't lose sight of this, it's
> > important for a variety of reasons.
Yann Dirson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> IMO, this distinction is necessary from the point of view of
> distribution maintainers. I will not contest that, and a simple
> boolean control-field in packages will handle that well.
> But I do not think it is necessary from the user point of view. What
> they need is just something that cat be run by the VM they choose; I
> mean that from both doc and binary point of views.
> I they *really* want to get the source for any purpose, the
> install-tool will just have to follow links down to the original
> Note here that I consider that a single tool will be needed for all
> packages, no matter how much conversions lead to them.
This is all fine from the user point of view, but the maintainer side
of things needs to be packaged for a simpler (all-terrain) tool set.
Alternatively, from the end user point of view, simplicity lies in
automation. Here, you want minimal effort between user interest in
some package and package up and running. However, from the maintainer
point of view, simplicity lies in the data: clean layout, simple
(portable) formats, etc.
[Of course, maintainers need automation too -- but that's for the
tools that they use, rather than the source for the packages they
work on. The only really good automation I'm aware of for package
source has to do with getting updates expediently.]
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .