Re: Playing with the spec
* 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!
Reply to: