X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mailnull set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020302205747.02749500@mail.dorsai.org> X-Sender: pjfarley AT mail DOT dorsai DOT org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 21:01:12 -0500 To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com From: "Peter J. Farley III" Subject: Re: Restructured dir.txi -- please review and comment Cc: "Eli Zaretskii" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com 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" >> >> 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)