Re: Playing with the spec

[Jochem Huhmann <joh@gmx.net>]

* Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> wrote:
>         I was not talking of replacing the older versions of the DTD
>  (yes, that _would_ be horribly broken). However, you do *not* need
>  package names, and worse, verion numbers cluttering up the archive
>  structure to achieve that. I posit that embedding package names and
>  versions numbers shall lead to a directory structure that may grow
>  untenable in the future, given the potential for rapid explasion of
>  packages and DTD's as XML gets wider acceptance.

OK, you may be right. 

>  Jochem>         /usr/share/sgml/
>  Jochem>                         kde-1.2/
>  Jochem>                                 dtd/
>  Jochem>                                 entities/
>  Jochem>                                 style-sheets/ 
>  Jochem>                                 images/
> 
>  Jochem> This is just an idea and may be way too simple.
> 
>         Ugh. Even if we were just talking about docbook, this seems
>  inverted, and non UNIXy. (This like /usr/emacs/bin,
>  /usr/yacc/bin. /usr/vi/bin, etc.).

It's like /opt. I don't like /opt too much, too. ;-)

>         Espescially since there has not been a good reason to do so: I
>  would prefer capturing the version information in the file name,
>  rather than the directory structure, based on teh same arguments that
>  we have a consolidate bin directory rather than a plethora of bin
>  directories 

You are right. But how should it look then? We have to agree on
something, that's all.

> 
>         I would even be willing to go to allowing large apllications 
>  to have their own subdirectory under /usr/share/sgml/dtd/, somewhat
>  like the dispensation given to X11 (/usr/bin/X11/ directories, for
>  example). 

Yepp.



        Jochem

-- 
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!