Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc

[John Marino <netbsd%marino.st@localhost>]

On 4/11/2013 19:43, Aleksej Saushev wrote:
> > Having the ability to scroll doesn't justify the existence
> > unnecessarily verbose descriptions.
>
> If you want concise description, you use "pkg_info -c".


You are not listening.  It is more common to read descriptions on 
package that are not installed -- packages that you might build.  So 
pkg_info doesn't help.  Secondly, a one-line description is not the same 
thing as a concise description.  Obviously.


> You can use "less DESCR" with better success. Thus what you're arguing for
> is your personal preference to continue using broken way to view textual files.


No, you are arguing that people should not be using the console with 
pkgsrc.  You have no justification for considering browsing pkgsrc on a 
command line as broken.


> I think that you don't actually have any idea of what you're talking about.
> How long has it been since you got good summary from a teenager?
> How many teenagers have you worked with?


Believe me, I have plenty of experience with literate teenagers that can 
compose circles around university students and adults.


> The fundamental difference between us is that I have seen those commits.
> I reviewed changes and found that in some cases they caused loss of
> important information.
> In fact, after this acknowledgment that you have not actually looked
> at changes you should stop further discussion. You have no idea what
> reduction of "verbosity" you're talking about now, and it doesn't make
> any good impression of you.


I know the definition of "arbitrary" and you're misusing it.  Doing a 
poor job of editing is doesn't make it arbitrary, just poor.



> Some modern LED displays as well as punch cards have only one line.
>
> If you use "more" or "less" then you don't have any of issues you're
> talking about. Thus your wish to truncate information at any price
> to make it fit screen size is not justified by practical need actually.


I didn't ask for one line, I asked not to see verbal diarrhea.  Greg 
Troxel already said he's never seen a 50-line description that justified 
it's length.  Since you clearly disagree with that, I challenge you to 
find a description that long that absolutely can not adequately be 
recomposed by a literate person into 20 lines or less without losing its 
function as package description (aka abstract).


> It is not me who is defending obsolete "standards" and
> not-actually-standards here.
>
> What is more important is that I don't use false analogies,
> don't build straw man, and don't appeal to past time here.


Actually, that's not a false analogies, that's EXACTLY what you do. 
It's EXACTLY what you've posted repeatedly and recently.  "OMG, $$XYZ is 
*totally* not the same as $${XYZ} and now the whole makefile is 
ruined!!! it has to reverted immediately!!"  (eyes roll).

Why even deny it?  Surely you read what you write?