On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 13:04:18 -0700 Brian Dolbec <dol...@gentoo.org> wrote: > While this is a simple format. This is not a standard data input file > format for language tools to map it into native language variables and > types. > > I would much prefer for any new files to be created in a format that > most languages have data input modules for and are easily read/edited > by humans. While this can be read and split easily in python code. > It is not future proof for additional data being added and/or removed. > > For the repoman stage3 rewrites. I am moving all configurable data > from the code into yaml based files in /metadata/repoman. These > files will be easily edited by all developers for updates to banned > eclasses and various other values not needing code changes. > > So with a general file name of arches.desc Is there any other data > that we want to include in that file? Possibly migrated from other > file(s). In that case a dictionary format yaml file might be best. > My example below has additional info over what was proposed. > It is an example only to show the possible benefit of such a file > type.
It's bad enough that we have to parse XML inside the package mangler for optional data. Adding YAML (with all its format bugs: YAML files created with libyaml can't be read by syck, and vice-versa) for files that the package mangler has to read is even worse. Plain text *is* a standard format. -- Ciaran McCreesh
