Re: [gfsd]Re: gas/binutils (a.k.a. we really suck sometimes)

[Phillip Rulon]

   Envelope-to: address@hidden
   Cc: address@hidden,  address@hidden,  address@hidden,  address@hidden,
             address@hidden
   From: Hugo Gayosso <address@hidden>
   Date: 20 Nov 2000 23:05:13 -0500

   Phillip Rulon <address@hidden> writes:

   >        And we should also merge all the pages:
   >        http://www.gnu.org/software/PACKAGE into the Free Software Directory
   >        too. Why having three different entities is a good idea?
   > 
   >    This is not a useful thing to do.  The directory points to the web
   >    pages for each program, but those pages are never inside the
   >    directory.  For a GNU program, the actual pages have to go somewhere,
   >    and that somewhere is http://www.gnu.org/software/PACKAGE.  So this
   >    should not be changed.
   > 
   > I disagree, I believe, in this period, that the directory should serve as
   > an axis about which the GNUism of a project revolves.  Each aspect of a
   > package that relates to GNU should be available through the directory.
   > 
   > You're treating the directory as a pure metadata archive.  That's a
   > valuable thing for the rest of the world, but it doesn't leverage
   > GNU as a huge contributor to the Free Software movement.  We might
   > be missing an opportunity thereby.

   I don't see your point here Phillip, I agree in that the directory
   should be metadata and the actual software webpage should offer more
   information.

There are now several sites that use directory, metadata, bug
tracking, and source code sharing functions as the basis for on-line
communities.  We offer all of these functions and more but, so far, do
not integrate them well.  Some sites are using this very effectivly to
promote themselves and Free Software in general.  It makes sense to me
that GNU should be a leader in this sort of thing.

   >        Then we should recruit webmasters to maintain those pages (as 
somebody
   >        from webmasters pointed it out before),
   > 
   >    The package maintainer is supposed to maintain them, but in many cases
   >    they do it wrong.
   > 
   > These are weird arguments, since they don't refute each other.  Why not
   > imagine doing both using the directory as a facilitator.  Have the web
   > people work with the package maintainers to DTRT.

   As I said the maintainer will be *REQUIRED* to create the XML file,
   and a script would create a basic web page and the entry for the Free
   Software Directory, if either the maintainer or any of the webmasters
   want to make the web page more vivid, they could do it as long as they
   follow the guidelines created by the webmasters.

I always hesitate to read the word REQUIRED when it relates to
contributing to GNU.  When things don't get done we, thankfully, tend
to call for volunteers rather than issue requirements.

pjr