Alfs Update - have time before reading.........
bdumm at bobby.bcpub.com
Thu Dec 28 11:24:01 PST 2000
> Sure. There is also a Net::Jabber module from which we can get some nice
good point :)
> That was just a thought, I'm not sure I have a totally clear picture of all
> this yet. I'll have to more thinking before I write something that will
> make some sense. :)
Sure, send me drafts if you want, I can kickstart it also if you want...
> Yes, I like this and we should definitely consider it.
> It's probably a bit early though. Of course, we should have it in mind
> while coding so we could easily implement it later.
Yea I think the infosystem is still a little off, but I want to go after
such things. I know we could use such a system locally, as I expect
many such networks could use such an info-system.... Maybe it could
have a hotlist of "info-systems" to plug into :)
> I'm still not quite sure if you meant (since you compared it with
> <configure>) something like:
> <system_command dir="/package/to/patch" param1="-N" param2="-p1"
> param3="-i" param4="/path/to/patch/findutils-4.1.patch">
> or just:
> <patch dir="/package/to/patch" param1="-N" param2="-p1">
> Hmmm, now that I wrote it, I think I like the second option. :)
> It looks a bit clearer than <system_command>.
Yea I like the second one also. Maybe tags should have absolute
and never relative pathnames? Would sure make things easier....
I don't want to re-create the shell :)
> Maybe we don't even need "builddir" at all? As we got rid of <cd> tag and
> since <system_command> should have "dir" attribute it's not really needed.
> As for: "the backend/frontend to know the building directory", this can be
> easily found out from the currently executed tag (ie from
> Well, if you ask me, I would remove the "toplevel" attribute too. :)
> It's not really needed either and if it is (will be), it can be obtain from
> inspecting the archive.
Interesting, I think I can see builddir and how that will work, I'll have
to check out toplevel.... But if we can, I wouldn't mind eliminate all
the unneccessary info....
> That way, <package> tag would only have "name" and "version" attributes
> which I think it's nice. We could also add "desc" / "help" / whatever too,
> so that the tag would only contain the information that describes the
> package and that's interesting for the user and nothing more.
Good point, and maybe a good guideline for us to "stick to"....
> Sure, thanks. The New Year is yet to come though ... :)
I hear that... Gerard should be here tomorrow thru next mon-tues.
So expect some communication to drop over the weekend...... :)
who is Sore Loserman, I want him for president :)
More information about the alfs-discuss