Re: Xml in packaging system

[Richard Coleman <richardcoleman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I have found that 99% of the time that a project starts with the 
statement "FOO is overkill, let's just do something simple", the project 
will grow in complexity until you wish you had started with the more 
comprehensive approach the first time.  I always get this feeling when I 
look at the POD (plain old documentation) used by the Perl folks.  I'm 
sure people on the forums can think of many other examples.

I'm not an XML junkie, but I think it fits pretty good in the space we 
are discussing.

And remember that programmers are notorious for underestimating the 
complexity of a project.  I've been guilty of it so many times, I've 
lost count.

ps. I don't really want to get into a discussion about POD.  I was just 
using it as an example.

Richard Coleman
richardcoleman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

James Frazer wrote:
> I have to agree with David on this.
>
> XML in the packaging system is kind of over-kill, in my opinion.
>
> I'm sure the OpenDarwin developers at one point considered XML for 
> DarwinPorts but decided that it didn't provide any advantages (correct 
> me if I'm wrong).  In the end they settled with TCL key-value pairs 
> because they were simple and easy to read/write (and dports was written 
> in TCL anyway).
>
> Not to say XML doesn't have useful applications, I just think it would 
> make things slightly more complicated than they need be.
>
> I personally think the design of DarwinPorts is going to turn out pretty 
> good.  Unfortunately I do not yet have a spare machine that I can 
> install DFBSD and dports on to test/tinker with.  Nobody seemed overly 
> enthusiastic about dports when I mentioned it before so maybe it will 
> just turn into one of those things I'll never get around to -- 
> eventually I'll get to it -- I hope.