On 05/28/2010 02:38 PM, Jean-Philippe MENGUAL wrote:
Hi,
I'm not a developper in the book and in the project, but I follow what
happens with interest. Firstly because I write sometimes on the wiki,
secondly because I translate into French the project.
My opinion about the evolution of xml is the following (it's only mine).
If I understand the advantages of such change, I wonder if it would not
be a good idea, first and in priority, to release a new stable release.
Indeed, there have not been any stable release for nearly 2 years I
think. I think that priority should be this instead of xml issues. For
instance, clfs could release a stable for x86_64 and multilib which seem
to be worling; I don't know what is for sparc and other architectures.
To sum up, I think it's a good idea, but it could be tried after
releasing a new stable which seems to be now a bigger emergency (I think
anyway).
That's my opinion. I let you decide of course. Such is not a problem for
me itself anyway.
I fully agree, I would like to see a release soon, there's a lot to do.
Like William said, after making this change it would be much easier to
maintain and prepare. That's why I am suggesting it now.
There's a lot that has to happen before a release, and there's a lot of
instability in the development book right now. Plus is seriously lagging
behind. It would probably be very counter productive to make a lot of
major changes to the xml in its current state, and then simplify it.
My proposed change is simply an expansion on our current structure. Very
little in the actual layout will change, mostly files will just be
merged together rather then having way too many redundant xi:includes.
Currently, for each forked file we have one for every tag for every
architecture. It's ridiculous.
I will implement this in a few sections of the book and see how it works
out.
_______________________________________________
Clfs-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cross-lfs.org/listinfo.cgi/clfs-dev-cross-lfs.org
