Re: [groff] Announcement and call for project submissions

[John Gardner]

*> The whole concept of Taps does not look sustainable to me. *
*> Users won't know where to find Taps, and even if they do find*
*> your Tap by accident (or by Google), they won't know whether*
*> or not to trust you (unless by chance, they already know you).*

Taps are a common and accepted practice for making one's project's
shareable with Homebrew. Their "discoverability" is made possible by
topic-searches <https://github.com/topics/homebrew-tap> on GitHub, as well
as the more recent introduction of project recommendations
<https://github.com/discover> which they tailor to your recent
contributions, "starred" repositories, and people you follow (you can
dismiss them individually, obviously).


*> On top of that, a central package repository is also superior to a*
*> fragmented landscape because in package management, one major*
*> source of trouble is style inconsistencies among different packages…*

I don't disagree, but Homebrew's maintainers have abrasive (and fickle)
policies, especially towards projects they don't consider "notable" enough
(e.g., Heirloom Troff, Neatroff). The tap feature existed in the first
place as a means for users to continue to use/share software which was axed
from the central package repository.



*> Just because a user installs man-db or mandoc doesn't imply they> want
to replace their system man(1) installation from day one*.

They can easily do so by using `brew unlink mandoc` to remove it from their
$PATH. Same with man-db, or anything else.


*> Actually, i expect many users install a new piece of software to inspect
and test it*

I do this all the time, and if it's shit, I run `brew uninstall` to wipe
all traces of it from my system. That includes binaries, manpages, shared
objects, everything.

I humbly suggest you actually try using Homebrew for a while if you're able
to access a macOS environment.


*> For the reasons explained above, i prefer having mandoc here:*

For self-explanatory reasons, I'm not going to duplicate formulae which are
already installable with Homebrew. =) That would be silly.

On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 08:58, Ingo Schwarze <address@hidden> wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> John Gardner wrote on Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 09:07:49PM +1100:
>
> > I've created a Homebrew "tap" <https://docs.brew.sh/Taps> for *roff or
> > man-related ports and packages which can be easily installed on macOS
> > using Homebrew:
> >
> > https://github.com/Alhadis/homebrew-troff
>
> I'm not convinced that is a very good idea.  The whole concept of
> Taps does not look sustainable to me.  Users won't know where to
> find Taps, and even if they do find your Tap by accident (or by
> Google), they won't know whether or not to trust you (unless by
> chance, they already know you).  On top of that, a central package
> repository is also superior to a fragmented landscape because in
> package management, one major source of trouble is style inconsistencies
> among different packages.  So a central repository with a community
> maintaining a consistent packaging style accross *all* packages,
> and also checking submitted packages for stupid errors and malicious
> content, is a big win for users, even if not everybody will agree
> with every style decision.
>
> > My attempt to submit man-db to Homebrew's core package registry didn't
> > go as planned, which is a polite understatement. I'll not waste time
> > griping; those curious can find the thread's nadir here
> > <
> https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-core/pull/36469#issuecomment-458474772
> >
>
> That's a clear case of a cultural clash.  While i (not that surprising
> for an OpenBSD developer) like a concise and direct communication
> style that doesn't use polite circumlocutions, i do realize that
> such a style can cause communication breakdown in practice and can
> harm diversity because what is perceived as offensive communication
> style differs among individuals - and among cultural contexts.
>
> So when trying to collaborate with a given community, i recommend
> trying to follow that community's style, even if one prefers a
> more direct style (of course, that's not always easy).
>
> > I've already added a formulae for Heirloom Doctools, and plan on adding
> > one for Neatroff too.
> > I hope to add @n-t-roff <https://github.com/n-t-roff>'s historical Troff
> > ports, as well as any investigate the possibility of distributing
> > `tmac` files through Homebrew. E.g., running `brew install
> > mdn.tmac` would place `dn.tamc` in one's tmac path.
>
> While i'm not convinced that installing man-db in /usr/local/ in
> the PATH endangers build systems (then again, i'm not familiar with
> MacOS), there is a technical argument against installing man-db (or
> mandoc, for that matter) directly as man(1) into the default PATH:
> Just because a user installs man-db or mandoc doesn't imply they
> want to replace their system man(1) installation from day one.
> Actually, i expect many users install a new piece of software to
> inspect and test it - and if they like it, they may decide to make
> it the system default much later.
>
> So i think installing the binaries with a command prefix is a very
> reasonable choice.  Which one to use amounts to choosing the colour
> of the bikeshed.  Colin slightly dislikes "gman", so choosing that
> one would possibly be unfortunate.  The name "dbman" may be acceptable
> even though some might confuse it with "mandb".  Even though somewhat
> lengthy, "man-db_man" would be very clear and explicit.  *That's*
> your call as a package maintainer.
>
> > If anybody knows of any package or ports they'd like to share, please do!
> > It doesn't matter if they're modern or historical codebases, it'll
> > be great to get as much Troff-related utilities out there. :D
>
> For the reasons explained above, i prefer having mandoc here:
>
>   https://formulae.brew.sh/formula/mandoc
>
> Though of course anybody is allowed to redistribute it, the license is
> free.
>
> Yours,
>   Ingo
>