The iPKG format should be replaced with a known configuration file format.

[jfdm]

For now the current ipkg format has served us well, however, with the interest in developing an Idris package manager the format should be replaced with a known configuration file format i.e. YAML.

YAML appears to be the choice de jeur for configuration files. Use of YAML will also allow for definition of a checkable schema for package files.

There are several advantages for switching to a known format. For one, it appears to provide the benefits of XML sans the horror's associated: extensible, well formed, types and namespaces, CDATA et cetera It is essentially, key-value pairs but on steroids and is more human readable than JSON. Secondly, support for a bespoke configuration file parser can be deprecated and work concentrated on using the contained values. Discussions over syntax also becomes deprecated to a degree.

The only disadvantage would relate to the Haskell library used. For example: not all libraries support schema checking, some require external dependancies and unsure if said dependancies are cross-platform. The PKG file parser and format need to be rewritten.

An example iPKG YAML file. Note the default options are explicitly represented here, and need not be represented.

This issue should be seen as a place holder for work in progress by myself. Though, if someone else completes this before me I won't be mad.

[suhr]

YAML seems to be pretty complicated.

What about TOML? Rust's Cargo uses it, for example.

[jfdm]

I haven't heard of TOML. Can you clarify more, why you think TOML should be considered over YAML.

[suhr]

TOML config example: https://gist.github.com/suhr/2a4747c3b5b3c1062094

I haven't heard of TOML.

https://github.com/toml-lang/toml

Can you clarify more, why you think TOML should be considered over YAML.

The main reason is it's more simple.

[ahmadsalim]

@jfdm Do you think it is still relevant to change format?

[jfdm]

At the moment I do not think we should change the format it is pretty stable after all, but I am still worried about extensibility and maintaining a custom parser. At some point in the future we should revisit it certainly.

[LeifW]

I have work adding support for a yaml format in addition to the current
ipkg format I could push up. I had been hoping to have other tools read the
files e.g. dependency managers.
On Apr 11, 2016 11:51 PM, "Jan de Muijnck-Hughes" notifications@github.com
wrote:

At the moment I do not think we should change the format it is pretty
stable after all, but I am still worried about extensibility and
maintaining a custom parser. At some point in the future we should revisit
it certainly.

—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#1825 (comment)

[langston-barrett]

@LeifW Any progress? It would be great to move to a standard format, rather than maintaining a custom one.

[jfdm]

I don't know about the work of @LeifW, but I do have something in the pipeline. Sadly, work commitments take priority, and won't get back to it until beginning of November.

[LeifW]

I can put up a PR for what I have later this week or this weekend. Jan looks like he's put more thought into this than I have, but perhaps my work can be helpful as a starting point.

[be5invis]

+1 for TOML. It is simple enough