Re: registration request

Stefan Karrmann <[email protected]> Wed, 28 Aug 2002 20:13:13 +0200
Newsgroups gmane.comp.djb.package
Message-ID <20020828181313.GA309@johann>
D. J. Bernstein (Sat, Aug 24, 2002 at 08:44:09PM -0000):
> Stefan Karrmann writes:
> > Well, ed is an editor, like emacs, vi, joe, etc.
> 
> Is sed an editor? Is kword an editor? Is webmin an editor?

sed yes (I know that you would ask it.)
kword is a word processor
TeX is a typesetting system
I do not know webmin

The choice of a category is the fundamental problem of the category
system of slashpackage, cf. the mailing list archive.

I am open to suggestions - should ed be in
  prog (most programing language needs an editor),
  data (ascii/latin1 text is also a (simple) data structure), or in
  misc (it does not fit into another category)?

How should I integrate ed (and emacs, gcc, X11) into slashpackage if
the command ed cannot be registed?

Proposal for conflicting implementation:
----------------------------------------

Package editor/ed is virtual, i.e. there is no implementation with
name prefix editor/ed-. The commands ed and red belongs to editor/ed.

Package editor/gnu-ed-0.3 is an implementation, like editor/foo-ed-42,
etc.

Variant 1:
----------
Symlink editor/ed to editor/gnu-ed-0.3. This is quite simple, but
everytime you update gnu-ed you have to update the symlink.

Variant 2:
----------
Symlink editor/ed to editor/gnu-ed. This fixes the cons of variant 1,
but if a package manager links every name in the subdirectory command
of every current version from /command it will get a conflict!
Well, it may ignore conflicts if they point to identical inodes (and
choose the one which points to the other).

Variant 3:
----------
editor/gnu-ed has no subdirectory command but cmd-loc. To choose it
as the current implementation symlink all names in cmd-loc from
editor/ed/command.

My favorite is 2 although it complicates a package manager.
-- 
Stefan Karrmann
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 240 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iEYEARECAAYFAj1tErkACgkQsWokb1W7k0WAJgCcDZRMoJHf9bv17pDp+yugFkHp
3tcAn2S9FJcmqEC2ONPxVlFX9hvtfFK/
=Txxw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----