[csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs py_lxml

[Philip Brown]

On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 12:04 AM, Dagobert Michelsen <dam at opencsw.org> wrote:
>
> IMHO nobody will decide which libxml binding he is using by the
> description of the package.

When someone is writing a program, it makes sense to know what tools
are available to use.
If you are on freebsd, you would probably see what tools are
"available" with minimum effort on freebsd.
If you are on linux, you would probably see what tools are "available"
with your particular distro.

If you are using solaris, and you are using OpenCSW as your
pre-compiled package system, it seems to me to make sense to see what
tools and libraries are available through our "distro".

The quickest, most efficient way to do that, is to pull up the one
line list of packages
(whether you do that via pkg-get -D, pkgutil, or
http://www.opencsw.org/packages)
and do a search for the topic that interests you.
That is why the -D (search descriptions) flag exists for pkg-get in
the first place.
The description of a package is very important.

For the coders among us, this is equivalent to writing appropriate comments.

/* This is the square function */
int square(xxx){ ... }

is a horrible, horrible comment. it's worse than useless, because it
conveys no extra information, yet still takes up space!

Similarly,
/* This is the square2 function */
int square2(xxx){ ...}

is worse yet. One needs to know why on earth there is a square2
function when there is already a square() function.

Our descriptions need to have meaningful information to them.
That means, the name of the software, and what it does, AND some level
of ambiguity reduction when there are multiple similar packages.