On Tuesday 01 of November 2005 19:25 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 17:22:29 +0100 Jan Kundrát <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > | What's wrong with XML format similar to the one that is used for our > | GLSAs? > > 1. Portage does not handle XML. Portage will not handle XML in the > near future.
How will it handle GLSAs then? [1] > 5. XML is merely adding another problem to the one we have already. Could you please explain? > There is no XML in this GLEP for the same reasons that there is no > Java, CORBA, EJBs, web services, on demand computing initiatives or > invisible pink unicorns. I'm not sure if our GLSAs use PHP, ODBC, ASP, SOAP, computer grids or invisible pink unicorns while I'm pretty sure they do use XML. > I have an eselect module which can read these news files. The whole > thing is about the same size as the DTD would need to be for an > XML-based solution. I have a parser written for the format in question. > The whole thing is smaller than the initialisation code for an off the > shelf XML parser. Great. Why haven't you just used existing code from `glsa-check`, BTW? > It's not a question of "what's wrong with XML?". It's a question of > "what advantage would we gain by strapping a giant flapping wet kipper > to a bicycle?". Or (a little bit rephrased) "why should we stick with consistent file formats". [1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/portage/glsa-integration.xml Cheers, -jkt -- cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth
pgpW3YjifGedE.pgp
Description: PGP signature
