[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: How to handle the jargon file?

Just curious really, but which format does the dict-jargon package use?


On Wed, May 26, 1999 at 15:43 +0100, Edward Betts wrote:
> Debian has at the moment the packages: 
> jargon      4.0.0-3 maintained by Steve Greenland <stevegr@master.debian.org>
> jargon-text 4.0.0-3 maintained by Edward Betts <edward@debian.org> (me)
> The first is in info format, the second in an odd hypertext language with a
> viewer called Volks-hypertext browser (also pacakged by me as vh). Both are
> version 4.0.0 of the jargon file.
> Eric S. Raymond has released version 4.1.2 of the jargon file, but it is not
> released in info format. The text version is broken, it does not work
> correctly with Volks-hypertext browser and the spacing is messed up.
> ESR's perfered format is html. The jargon file is now avaliable as a single 
> 2Mb html file jargon.html, which works quite well, if it does take a little
> while to load into lynx. The other option is a .tar.gz file containing all the
> html but each entry is a seperate file. I have done some work to see if I can
> package it, included is a perl script jargon-search for /usr/lib/cgi-bin to run
> searchs which I have yet to get working.
> What I want to know is does every else argee that this is the right way of
> doing it? 
> I noticed that Steve Greenland sayed he was going to remove his jargon package
> because he did not think that it should be part of Debian. I disagree, I think
> the jargon file is an important part of hacker folklore. One of the main
> reasons that I selected Debian as my OS rather than Redhat was that Debian 
> included a copy of the jargon file. 
> I would argue that if the jargon package was to be removed, so should
> miscfile.
> -- 
> I consume, therefore I am

         Dave Swegen           | Debian 2.1 on Linux i386 2.2.3
<dave@recursive.prestel.co.uk> | PGP key available on request
      <dsw@debian.org>         | Linux: The Choice of a GNU Generation

Reply to: