Re: Request: Test suite for EFS.

[Dermot Musgrove <dermot glade perl connectfree co uk>]

Loban Rahman wrote:
> 
[...]
>     i.  The "package" format should be an existing
>         widely used format (i.e. tar, tar.gz, zip)
>         even if there are a few deficiencies.
>     ii. The "package" format should be something newer
>         that doesn't have those deficiencies. (i.e EFS)
> 
[...]
> ii. sounds good too. I don't know the particulars of the EFS, but it if 
> has serious advantages over i., it ought to be done. All we'd need is a
> couple of command line tools that converts EFS files to directories and
> vice  versa. (the equivalent of tar, zip, and unzip). For GUI access,
> Gnome-vfs and Nautilus could have a module to view/modify the contents 
> of EFS files, just like they can do for RPM's and tarballs right now. 
> That way EFS files are as easily accessible as RPM's and tarballs, yet
> applications that use them natively can interface with them using the 
> efs library.
Hi, this might seem like heresy on gnome-list but I don't use Gnome.

I lurk here because I use gnome-libs for my Glade-Perl module and any
perl apps that it generates.

I don't want to install all of the other Gnome packages/libraries and I 
won't do so just to use an app unless it is really a good one. If you go 
down the road to yet another required Gnome library it had better be a 
killer.

I could make my Glade-Perl module produce perl source code from a Glade 
XML file because there was an existing XML::Parser perl module on CPAN. 

Whether my module adds to the general good or not is irrelevant but I 
would not have started unless the file format was an (existing) open
standard.

If, as seems likely, XML cannot cope then please ,for the sake of the 
open apps, use a format that can be read by any user with basic tools.

Regards, Dermot