Re: status questions

On Tue, 2003-11-04 at 19:36, Malcolm Tredinnick wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-11-04 at 17:31, seth vidal wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >  I was just wondering what people think of what we've come up with so
> > far. Does it seem workable for all the various projects/programs? Are
> > you comfortable with the file layout? 
> 
> I like it, but I have no corporate or commercial involvement, so I can
> afford to take the academic's view. :-)

hey - is that a remark at me? :)

> I meant to mention yesterday that I can help you with the DTDs if you
> need it. I understand what Daniel is talking about with the namespace
> attributes. (But see below for my timing -- it won't happen until the
> weekend.)

Well if you could point me at some other documentation on the DTD
problems I'll be glad to sort it out. I don't entirely understand the
problem he's describing so looking for docs is surprisingly hard :)

> Another ten hours a day. :-)
oo. Could I have some of those, oh and the need to sleep about 5 hours
less.


> Seriously, this week and last week are business as usual (i.e. very
> busy) at work, so I have been going home and crashing, rather than
> working on "stuff". I am taking a week off next week to catch up on some
> of my open source stuff that is piling up and this documentation is on
> the list. I will try and do it early in the week.

Don't break your neck over it. I'm working on this stuff at night and on
weekends so I understand having other demands on your time.



> I think I am fine as far as material to extract the information from. I
> have sorted through the archives and extracted out the non-obsoleted
> decisions. I can read your code and Jeff Licquia's (my day job involves
> Python, so *really* no problems there). Once I have written all this
> down, the fun will start because people here will be able to find places
> where I have misunderstood what is going on. But let's fall off that
> bridge when we come to it.

sounds like a plan.


> That should be .. um ... "interesting", given the LSB belief in
> dependency specification. Are they likely to bless a format that
> specifically accomodates for non-LSB compliant packages? But it would be
> worth it if we could do it, I think.

As I said above, lsb status, eventually. But I'd really love for this to
be a way to commonly describe package repositories and be able to revise
the format going into the future for new commonalities and features.
Maybe the only standard requirement is that it is used.

thanks,

-sv