DragonFly kernel List (threaded) for 2003-10
Re: Xml in packaging system
I have found that 99% of the time that a project starts with the
statement "FOO is overkill, let's just do something simple", the project
will grow in complexity until you wish you had started with the more
comprehensive approach the first time. I always get this feeling when I
look at the POD (plain old documentation) used by the Perl folks. I'm
sure people on the forums can think of many other examples.
I'm not an XML junkie, but I think it fits pretty good in the space we
And remember that programmers are notorious for underestimating the
complexity of a project. I've been guilty of it so many times, I've
ps. I don't really want to get into a discussion about POD. I was just
using it as an example.
James Frazer wrote:
I have to agree with David on this.
XML in the packaging system is kind of over-kill, in my opinion.
I'm sure the OpenDarwin developers at one point considered XML for
DarwinPorts but decided that it didn't provide any advantages (correct
me if I'm wrong). In the end they settled with TCL key-value pairs
because they were simple and easy to read/write (and dports was written
in TCL anyway).
Not to say XML doesn't have useful applications, I just think it would
make things slightly more complicated than they need be.
I personally think the design of DarwinPorts is going to turn out pretty
good. Unfortunately I do not yet have a spare machine that I can
install DFBSD and dports on to test/tinker with. Nobody seemed overly
enthusiastic about dports when I mentioned it before so maybe it will
just turn into one of those things I'll never get around to --
eventually I'll get to it -- I hope.