(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

Hugh wrote:

But that's exactly what you're doing. You've made it impossible to apply different coding style. Without those stupid comments it would be as simple as typing #indent -kr ppkg.c new-ppkg.c

We would like to believe that for programmers and coding nothing is impossible. Finding the 'solution' is not always easy but with sufficient thought it will come forth without fail.

Comments, of course, are always optional, however, they can be very helpful to get the gist of the routines quickly and easily; thus leading to the 'big picture' with ease.

http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v2.6.31/Docu ... Style#L425

Linux kernel coding style

This is a short document describing the preferred coding
style for the linux kernel.

Coding style is very personal, and I won't _force_ my views
on anybody, but this is what goes for anything that I have to
be able to maintain, and I'd prefer it for most other things too.

Please at least consider the points made here.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Of course, there are several coding conventions and
for the sake of 'uniformity' certain styles are recom-
mended for certain projects.

But I haven't seen any examples of the 'alleged'
over-commenting.

With a little ingenuity, in the event the comments
prove an irritant, it is possible to eliminate them
with the editor 'search and replace' function.

With a little more ingenuity, it is even possible to
develop a program to re-style the source code.

For programmers, nothing is impossible.

I don't want to keep talking off the topic, just let me say that I disagree with you.

did this get any further or was it abandoned?

There is new action in this area:

http://bkhome.org/blog2/?viewDetailed=00028

Wosh wrote: The category file structure is very simple as it only assigns package-names to their category. If all distribution categories once have been classified their source does not matter. The package-names are unique and hopefully have the same categorisation for each distribution. A universal puppy.ctg would be enough. It even could include Slackware and Arch as long as the categorisation has same structure for all distributions.

Wosh, this is no longer a stable statementset.

The freedesktop.org group that is handling categories has updated and added to the standard sets.

Therefore 'old' packages will meet one of the old standards, but newly updated or added packages may or not use a later standard depending on if a builder/packager is using the specific standard.

It will also be important to consider that most distributions have a number of non-standard categories that differntiate only for that build and can have different package-group meanings to different distributions.

And then you get down to the 'use' of the linux machine and what the package-group names relate to, I can best give you a pointer to what I mean, by asking you to consider these two boxes!

Box 1 runs linux and is a business workstation, so it has applications such as openoffice, a finance package, a graphics package, email, firefox, etc. all grouped as "office" applications.
There are a number of these boxes in any adverage office.

Box2 runs linux, however it's a data and email server for a office, it also has logins, monitoring software as well as databases and other common user backends. For it, the words 'office applications' don't mean user applications, but applications it needs to run and monitor to keep it and the office it 'works for' running happily.

So depending on what the builder/packager considers the package will exist on in the end, will depend on what group it will be given.

That is why different .ctg files should be considered, but even then I'm not sure it's enough by itself.