Re: Release!

[David Pirotte]

Hello Hartmut,

> > so why would we 'abandon' s-exp, what would we win here?  

> It might be interesting to *create* these files using tools written in
> other programming languages. And modules for creating *JSON* are
> available for most programming languages.

But that would be another tool, another package manager, not potluck... written 
by
we don't know who, neither when ... and that would be a totally separate effort,
that would not contribute to potluck ... which needs help (I wish I had the 
time...)

Potluck package definitions are generated, adjusted 'by hand' - mostly to update
the description, sometimes the copyright - then that is used to generated a Guix
package, which is a Guile scheme module: It makes no sense to me that the
potluck package representation would be anything but s-expr:

        actually, most guilers do the exact opposite :) -  when an app or a lib
        either produces or needs xml, html, json ... the first thing they do is 
to
        transform these into s-expr, so these become (a lot more) readable and
        hackable ...

> (OTOH TOML[]1] could be a better format than JSON – it's much like
> .ini-files, but more formal specification...

Absolutely terrible :):) I hope we never do that, at least not for the 
'official'
and maintained potluck package representation.

Again, my 2c.
David

pgpuud10hpjvI.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature