Re: OT to Debian [Was: RFC/ITP: Constitution of Finland]
Pedro Guerreiro <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 04:46:37PM -0400, Bob Hilliard wrote:
> > When the data section was first proposed on -policy, it included
> > some proposed rules for what should go in data. These seemed to get
> > lost along the way. I believe the original proposal provided that
> > data files that required specialized programs to access the data in the
> > intended manner would not go into the data section. This would
> I'm sorry, but with this reasoning, wouldn't all data be out of 'data'?
> IIRC, the data section came along because somebody wanted to package a
> monstrous amount of scientific data (I really don't remember what this data
> was all about). Well, wouldn't this data needed a "specialized program to
> access" it? And consequently be moved out of the 'data' section?
I think this "monstrous amount of scientific data" would need a
specialized program or programs to process it, but it was not
formatted to meet the requirements of any one specific program, and it
could be accessed using standard tools.
/usr/lib/bible.data (from the bible-kjv-data package) is
compressed data in a format that can't be read with generic tools,
and, presumably, is keyed for fast retrieval by the /usr/bin/bible and
The dict-* databases are .dz files (compressed with dictzip),
which are readable with zless (lesspipe doesn't understand the .dz
extension, so less won't read them). They are processed and indexed
in the corresponding .index files for fast access by dictd.
|_) _ |_ Robert D. Hilliard <email@example.com>
|_) (_) |_) Palm City, FL USA PGP Key ID: A8E40EB9