Massive libxo-zation that breaks everything
julian at freebsd.org
Mon Mar 2 09:16:57 UTC 2015
On 3/1/15 11:10 AM, Allan Jude wrote:
> On 2015-03-01 13:49, Harrison Grundy wrote:
>> That does seem useful, but I'm not sure I see the reasoning behind
>> putting into base, over a port or package, since processing XML in base
>> is a pain, and it can't serve up JSON or HTML without additional
>> utilities anyway.
>> (If I'm reviving a long-settled thing, let me know and I'll drop it. I'm
>> trying to understand the use case for this.)
>> --- Harrison
>> On 03/01/15 10:31, Craig Rodrigues wrote:
>>> On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Harrison Grundy <
>>> harrison.grundy at astrodoggroup.com> wrote:
>>>> If someone could summarize what this is, I'd greatly appreciate it.
>>> freebsd-current at freebsd.org mailing list
>>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>> freebsd-current at freebsd.org mailing list
>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
> I think you're missing the important bit here.
> This isn't about adding a parser for anything, this is about making the
> tools in base, like netstat, wc, uptime, etc, output in JSON or XML, so
> you can use the data programmatically.
exactly. I think that's the wrong path to take.
we have to change EVERY PROGRAM IN THE WORLD.
if we develop a suitable post processor with pluggable grammars, we
save a lot of work.
given enough examples you could almost have automatically generated
> Your scripts no longer have to rely on awk/sed/grep magic to get a
> specific bit of information out of the uptime command, the command can
> just output the data in a structured machine readable format.
> I am not sure how you can put netstat into the ports tree.
More information about the freebsd-current