On Monday 25 August 2008 23:00:09 John E. / TDM wrote:
> In point of fact, I personally don't object to a tree layout in
> general; it's the specific category names and structure you've
> advocated thus far that I find confusing.
Well, nothing in my sample XML file was ever intended to be cast in
stone; it was mostly arbitrary, off the cuff stuff I threw in to give
my parser something to work with, and was always going to require
rationalisation for an eventual design.
> * What is the difference between "MSYS Standard Tools" (in "Base
> System") and "MSYS Base System" (in "Developer Tools")?
Nothing. They should represent identically the same set of packages,
and really should have shared a common name, to reflect this.
> * Why is it called "Developer Tools"? What differentiates it from
> the packages in "Base System" (which are, after all, developer
There can be overlap, perhaps even significant overlap, between the
content of any pair of major headings -- that's not uncommon in our
role model, Synaptic. I thought of `Base System' as a minimal
collection for new users, to get them started, while `Development
Tools' would offer a more comprehensive collection, (which would also
include the `Base System' components.
> * Why does the single source level debugger MinGW provides
> (GDB) merit its own category, when I would unequivocally place it
> in the Compiler Suite?
We actually provide *two* alternative debugger packages -- bare GDB
and GDB encapsulated within Insight. I'd like to keep the `MinGW
Compiler Suite' to represent just those core packages we've always
bundled as `MinGW', and that didn't include GDB; therefore, it needs
a separate heading, just as it now has in the FRS.
> * Why does the GNU Autotools category lack the MSYS moniker?
> Shouldn't these fit in the "MSYS Supplementary Tools" category?
That's where they have been traditionally, and I would certainly keep
them there. However, we have had several questions in recent months,
of the `where can I find the autotools for use with MinGW?' variety;
exposing them separately, in addition to their traditional location
is merely a suggestion, to help make them more visible. I omitted
the MSYS moniker, because I intended these to be just the versions
for use in MinGW projects, not to be confused with Chuck's special
versions for use in MSYS system builds.
> * Why are the MinGW ports in their own heading instead of under the
> tools and libraries headings?
My intention for these is to provide the mingwPORT packages. These
have a distinct deployment mechanism, therefore I think they merit a
> Since I don't like to criticize without suggesting an alternative,
> here's a tree layout I'd be happier with (though I still prefer a
> flat list).
We will each have individual preferences; neither way is definitively
better than the other. Personally, I think the more structured
layout, with one major heading level, and *at* *most* one subheading
level, makes for easier navigation, but I don't expect everyone to
agree; I'd really like to see more end users contributing to this
discussion, so we can reach a more generally acceptable consensus.
> All Packages
> Starter System [expanded by default]
> MinGW Compiler Suite [selected by default]
> MSYS Starter System
> MinGW Compiler Suite
> MinGW Base Libraries
> MinGW Native Ports
> MSYS Base
> MSYS Tools
> User-Contributed Tools
> User-Contributed Libraries
Thanks for this. I like `Starter System', in preference to `Base
System'. The rest seems like a reasonable starting point, from which
the eventual structure can evolve. However, because the mingwPORTs
are so different in their packaging, I would separate them under
their own major heading.