Hello Marco, On Fri, Jul 10, 1998 at 03:26:00PM +0100, Marco Budde wrote: > Am 09.07.98 schrieb Marcus.Brinkmann # ruhr-uni-bochum.de ... > > MB> I think there are indeed problems, for example if two packages want > MB> register the same home page. I don't think this is very likely, but I > MB> think it is very likely that two packages may want to register the same > MB> relative path in your proposal. > > The path is relative in the docreg file but not in the database! There#s > no difference, sorry.
Yes,, this is true. And I come to the conclusion that the Identifier field is not required to be unique. Adam is right, there is no reason why it should be unique. We just dont need a unique identifier. (Maybe the set of all four required field must be unique, or the identifier must be unique within a single package, Im not sure, but for now the Identifier field is not required to be unique). > MB> > But we will have something like general/howto. > MB> No, we will not have something like this. > > ??? Some month ago we both agreed, that we will have such a section. We didnt have the type field then, which is a much better solution, although you dont seem to recognize it. > > MB> > If I (as package maintainer) would for example move HOWTO/ to HOWTO/html > MB> > all links to the HOWTOs will be broken with both solutions. > MB> ???? You would have to update your docreg files, wouldn't you? > > The links of translations to this package would be broken! This shows that > your propsal uses filenames as identifier. Oh, you are talking about links between docreg entries... well, I havent considered the issues of translations and autoconversion. Marcus -- "Rhubarb is no Egyptian god." Debian GNU/Linux finger brinkmd@ Marcus Brinkmann http://www.debian.org master.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] for public PGP Key http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
