[linux-elitists] [firstname.lastname@example.org: Re: [Beowulf] hpl size problems]
Tue Oct 11 17:24:02 PDT 2005
On 04-Oct-2005, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> From: "Robert G. Brown" <email@example.com>
> Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 09:26:29 -0400
> I happen to think that the metadata in the package itself should be
> in xml format as a "meta" design choice for a variety of reasons,
> but even this isn't a necessary thing, only desireable
Ugh. I find the easy-editing of package metadata files (RPM foo.spec,
Debian control, etc.) to be far more valuable than any advantage that
might come from hierarchically structured metadata.
To paraphrase JWZ, Some people, when confronted with a data set,
think "I know, I'll use XML". Now they have two problems. XML is the
right choice where a highly flexible hierarchical data structure is
needed, but the tradeoff, loss of simple editing with any text editor
I choose, had better be worth it.
> Finally, one MUST NOT FORGET that rpms tend to be FUBAR not because
> of any particular weakness in rpm (the design) per se or in
> rpmbuild, but out of egregious user error.
Indeed. The much-vaunted package quality of Debian's official packages
is not due to the format they use, but due to the package policy,
and the QA requirement that all deviations from that policy are
The reason I choose Debian is because they seem to be doing the best
at package quantity *and* quality. The APT toolset is useful only
because the packages are of a consistently high quality. Any package
format, with sufficient metadata and QA rigour, could do the same job.
\ "As soon as I get through with you, you'll have a clear case |
`\ for divorce and so will my wife." -- Groucho Marx |
Ben Finney <firstname.lastname@example.org>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://allium.zgp.org/pipermail/linux-elitists/attachments/20051012/e23907d8/attachment.pgp
More information about the linux-elitists