Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2002/03/02/20:58:34
At 09:08 PM 3/2/02 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 12:27:40 -0500
>> From: "Peter J. Farley III" <pjfarley AT dorsai DOT org>
>>
>> Hmm-m-m. What if I add "From FOOb.zip" to the section headings for
>> each package? Would that alleviate your concerns?
>
>What are the problems to keep the old section names? The FOOb.zip
>are there only for large and prominent packages, so it's not that we
>are talking about lots of sections.
The problem is that FOOb.zip as a section name does not tell me
anything about what it is the programs in that package do. It is
useful for the programmer who remembers the FOOb.zip description in the
simtel index file (assuming they even looked at said index file), but
not for telling right here in "/info/dir" what task it is that the
contents of the package will help one complete.
But you are right -- there are not that many of them. More
problematical from my point of view is the lo-o-ong "Miscellaneous"
section, only three parts of which (fileutils, shellutils, textutils)
provide a categorical breakdown of the functionality of a package. I
have often been frustrated paging back and forth this section looking
for the tool I needed at that point, not knowing ahead of time what
it's name was.
>> Is it the loss of "From" info that concerns you, or the basic
>> structure?
>
>I just don't like changes with no good reasons ;-)
>
>DJ put there those section names, and he probably did that for a
>reason.
I don't doubt it, but there is no constant but change. The contents of
DJGPP's "/info/dir" file have stood DJGPP in good stead, but that does
not mean it cannot be improved.
Whether or not my changes are an improvement is a judgement for the
community to make. I will gladly include new pieces or re-arrange any
part of it that folk do not find more useful than the current version.
>> I really wanted to adjust the basic structure, not just
>> tweak the existing one, since the existing structure is what I find
>> less than usable. It's not a *bad* structure, mind you (not like
>> what results after all-zippo installs), but it does not help *me*
>> find the information I need when I need it.
>
>Well, can you explain what help do you need, and how does the current
>shape of DIR prevent you from finding the info?
The problem is that the organization of the sections fails to enable
info users to find a utility whose name they do not know, much less
which package it might be contained in. I believe that a set of
categorical sections, in *addition* to an alphabetical section for
those who know the name already, is an invaluable aid when one consults
info to *find* the utility to accomplish a task.
As I have been writing this reply, I realized that what I think I would
like to see would be something that "/info/dir" is not intended to be
in its current incarnation: More like a reference book, with the
section names taking the place of chapter titles, and the material in
each section organized by function, and with the functional
descriptions serving to delineate each sub-section with actual menu
items. An index at the end ("Miscellaneous" in the current DJGPP
version, "Individual utilities" in the texinfo-recommended structure)
would provide alphabetical access to each utility by name.
Ideally, the early sections should be short in length and broad in
scope, giving a quick view of the entire file contents in as few pages
as possible. This should be followed by functional category sections
(and there could easily be several more of these than I have suggested
so far), and it should be finished by a purely alphabetical list of
everything.
That is an organization that works for me. My hope is that it also
works for others.
I am going to go back to work and see if I can make my suggested new
dir.txi reflect these goals, which I now realize it does not quite do.
In the interim, if it will help you more, I can just "fix up" the
current dir.txi with some text re-arrangement. In particular, the
fileutils, shellutils and textutils sections can and probably should be
positioned *before* the "Miscellaneous" section. Then the
"Miscellaneous" entries won't need additional section names. Is that
more like what you had in mind?
---------------------------------------------------------
Peter J. Farley III (pjfarley AT dorsai DOT org)
- Raw text -