On Thu, 2002-10-10 at 06:16, Max Horn wrote: > So while I still think Variants are somewhat cool, I wonder if they > are really worth the effort, or at least if they are worth the effort > right now. Maybe they are. Maybe not. But I think before we storm > ahead and somebody "just implements it", we should have a rock solid > design of it. That said, of course certain things can only be found > out by implementing and evaluating them - if somebody wants to open a > CVS *branch* I am fine to it, but please stay away from HEAD CVS for > now.
Yeah, I'm inclined to believe that the only way this is worth it *right now* is if it's accompanied by a rewrite of the dependency loop. That whole section of the Fink code has obviously been growing without bounds, accumulating warts of special-cases, it really needs to be cleaned up. > And I definitly see no reason to switch to an XML format. The current > format has proven with splitoffs that it is powerful enough to handle > what we need. While I don't quite agree with the syntax of the > example given on this thread, its general outline is what we are > looking for I think. I'll second this. I'm all for XML where it's useful (primarily machine-generated and machine-parsed configuration or data that needs to still be hand-editable), but for something that's mostly hand-edited by a human, key:value is perfectly sufficient. ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
