*> 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 <schwa...@usta.de> 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 >
