syntax, ALFS, nALFS -- versioning
CoreyCox at linuxfreemail.com
Fri Aug 10 10:26:56 PDT 2001
Neven Has wrote:
>I'm not sure why you think that's needed. Like I wrote in my reply to Jesse,
>the only standards that we should create and follow are those needed for
>programs and profiles to work with each other.
>I don't think that versioning of various different software and profiles
>that are now present, or will be in the future, should be enforced.
>I look at all this (both licenses issue and versioning) this way:
>Think about IRC for example. There is a strictly defined protocol that
>surrounds it. That protocol is used by a bunch of different clients and
>servers which (because of the protocol) communicate very well.
>But those clients and servers don't have to have the same license, nor
>use the same versioning system.
>There could be 1.0c18, BSD, 1.2.3, GPL, 990212, or even 010808-fix1. ;)
>IMHO, we should limit ourselves to just setting the standards that we really
>need - nothing more, nothing less.
Alright, I agree with you on most of this. My main point is about the
profile versioning actually. Currently we are working with "1.0" as the
version number written into the alfs profiles. Except your profile
which has the version listed as what LFS system it is based on. I just
think we need ot decide what this attribute is going to be used for and
what numbering system we are going to use for the syntax. Here is what
I think: First I think the version= attribute should refer to the
version of the syntax that the profile is written in. This way the ALFS
agent could check that and know whether it can interpret it or not - or
if we get really sophisticated in the future it could allow backwards
compatibilty. Second I think we need to decide on a versioning system
for the syntax, and start using it. That way we dont' back ourselves
into a corner when no one can figure out which profiles are suposed to
wokr on which versions of interpreter.
The next thing I'd like to see is a little different. This I think
would be very useful for both developement of profiles and within the
interpreters themselves. This would be a module to test for validity
against a DTD. I know we dont' currently have one - but I could knock
one out real quick with the new syntax real quick - or anyone else could
do it too. Then this module could be used to test profiles before the
build process - further it would test whether we are really using the
XMLcorrectly. Let me know what you think.
Byt he way I do have those profiles done now if anyone wants them. I'll
post to the list tonight - unless someones in a real hurry!
Unsubscribe: send email to alfs-discuss-request at linuxfromscratch.org
and put unsubscribe in the subject header of the message
More information about the alfs-discuss