Nils Gillmann transcribed 3.0K bytes: > I'm responding to the list since I see no reason why this > should be offlist. I hope this is okay for you. > > Christian Grothoff transcribed 4.4K bytes: > > > >> I will probably finish this today or tomorrow, if it builds then, we need > > >> a couple more eyes to review the content, types, URLs and so forth. > > > > > > Change of course: I took a 2nd closer look at anonbib and for now it > > > is inappropriate for the work which would have to put into it for our > > > bibtex lib. Reasons include: python2 specific issues which take too > > > long to fix. > > > > That's a very, very brief reason to give for a major change in > > direction. I don't understand at all what "python2 specific issues" > > would even be that we'd care about here. Please do elaborate _a lot_. > > > > > I have started with bibtex2html, perl based. This should give us a > > > html output in short time. I'll work on this and tell you once it is > > > usable and when you can contribute to the work on it. > > > > Eh, this makes no sense. To start with, Perl is not really a nice > > language (especially for this). We don't have anything in Perl so far! > > Also, it _does_ make sense to work with the Tor people on this one, so > > if there are issues both projects could benefit. > > > > So without further information, I'd be against this. > > > > Okay, I've slept over my last emails. > > To be fair, your argument that we don't have anything in perl and that > perl is not really a nice language is really just your opinion. > Except for styling we won't change much in the code.[1] > Anyway, back to my conclusions: > > The whole code of anonbib is in python2. It makes no use of maybe > more usable and well maintained (or: well written, more general) > bibtex modules in python. They imported their BibTeX module from > a perl module (read the code for all the reasons I mention here). > I don't see myself pushing code in their direction, because I > would have to change lots of the code base. A non-issue which > needs to be fixed nevertheless is that they have python2 > exlusively - and we are working on getting rid of python2. > > The issues with python2 in the code: > It comes down to the choice of either fixing many of our entries to > their limited BibTeX implementation (which is the main cause of > errors, we have more valid BibTeX record types), something which in > some parts can not be done with sed, or extending the python2 code. > If you haven't read the python2 code, please do. It is really not > pleasant to read in some parts. Extending will take longer than I can > justify, which leads me to: > > Last night I looked into jinja2 based bibtex->html. It is easy. As we > already use jinja2, this makes more sense than maybe eventually > sending code to freehaven's anonbib. I'll write a separate website for > this in jinaj2 and a common used bibtex module. Later we can integrate > this into the mainwebsite, but it makes sense to keep them separate. > I hope this is alright, if it isn't someone else can continue with > anonbib. > > 1: Okay, I just remembered after writing this email that we discussed > extensions to this before: we wanted some kind of search and other > features.
I am currently going through our .bib file with a newer python application. This showed more remaining errors (This time: with the linenumber, much faster) and I am confident that simply using something which makes use of for example pybtex will be easier to maintain. _______________________________________________ GNUnet-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnunet-developers
