[opentheory-users] theory file format specification

[Ramana Kumar]

Another question/comment: why must there be a unique author (as
opposed to, say, at least one)?

Also, the intent of the "license" information is a little unclear (and
why is it mandatory?). Which copyrighted work is the license intended
for: the package file itself, or one or more of the files it refers
to, or something else? (Presumably for this purpose the author is
supposed to represent the copyright holder...)

On 1 November 2015 at 15:38, Joe Leslie-Hurd <joe at gilith.com> wrote:
> Hi Ramana and Mario,
>
> Thanks for your feedback on the theory file format, I have fixed the
> issues and also updated the documentation to include the new checksum
> field in package blocks.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Joe
>
> On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 1:49 AM, Ramana Kumar <ramana at member.fsf.org> wrote:
>> Yes I agree, Mario.
>>
>> On this topic, the specification is also confusing in that it specifies a
>> regular expression for "PACKAGE-NAME" in the Package Information section,
>> but later, in the Package Blocks section, "PACKAGE-NAME" is again used but
>> this time with a different expectation for what regular expression it should
>> satisfy. I would suggest that in Package Blocks both "PACKAGE-NAME" and
>> "PACKAGE-VERSION" are re-used.
>>
>> On 31 October 2015 at 19:48, Mario Carneiro <di.gama at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> My guess is it should be "[0-9]+([.][0-9]+)*" instead of
>>> "[0-9]+([.][0.9]+)*". This will allow strings like "123.54.2356.0101"
>>> instead of "123.0909.0...9.0099", which looks more version string-like.
>>>
>>> Mario
>>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 4:42 AM, Ramana Kumar <ramana at member.fsf.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I believe there is an error in
>>>> http://www.gilith.com/research/opentheory/theory.html
>>>>
>>>> The regular expression which a version must satisfy does not look right.
>>>> Could somebody check it for me?
>>>>
>>>> I also have a request that package names be more liberal, for example
>>>> allowing numbers or uppercase letters. But this is not an urgent request,
>>>> we'll see what happens when more packages flow into the gilith repo...
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> opentheory-users mailing list
>>>> opentheory-users at gilith.com
>>>> http://www.gilith.com/opentheory/mailing-list
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> opentheory-users mailing list
>>> opentheory-users at gilith.com
>>> http://www.gilith.com/opentheory/mailing-list
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> opentheory-users mailing list
>> opentheory-users at gilith.com
>> http://www.gilith.com/opentheory/mailing-list
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> opentheory-users mailing list
> opentheory-users at gilith.com
> http://www.gilith.com/opentheory/mailing-list