linux package

atark at thepipeline.net atark at thepipeline.net
Wed Feb 14 19:24:45 PST 2001


Hello!  I've been pretty busy lately but I've been messing around with
my own 'Twig code a bit. Here is an example of how I would like to be
able to write a <package> tag. Basically using defaults that make sense,
make my profiles look a little less bulky and easier to read.

<package name="bash" version="2.04">
        <unpack />
        <config
                param1="--with-curses" 
                param2="--enable-static-link" 
                param3="--bindir=&LFS;/bin" 
                param4="--prefix=&LFS;/usr" 
                param5="--disable-nls" 
        />
        <make />
        <make_install />
        <link dir="&LFS;/bin" source="bash" type="symbolic">sh</link>
        <cleanup />
</package>

Note that for now I leave out the <preconfigure> <configure> ...  tags
as they are not really used yet.  Anyway just some stuff to think
about.  If come up with some useful modifications I'll post them for
disscussion before committing anything to CVS.  My ideas may or may not
fit in with the official ALFS direction.

--Andy



Neven Has wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 05:56:41PM -0500, Jason Gurtz wrote:
> > Hmm, that brings up two ideas for the wishlist:
> >
> > The first(hard):  automagicly knowing package version numbers (for when we
> > have a true packaging system I'd guess.
> 
> This is not hard, it's impossible. :)
> We can use package names, open it and read the top level directory or even
> grep some files in it, but we can never be 100% sure. How I wish we could ...
> 
> > The second(not so hard hopefully):  auto dealing with either gz or bz2
> > archives.  That's gota be the most annoying reason to have to go thru the
> > whole profile just to check wheather or not a package is correctly in the
> > profile as far as that goes. hehe
> 
> Agreed. Andy mentioned this once, even said he'd maybe write something,
> but we forgot about it.
> 
> For now, I could just add a check -- if, for example, <package>.tar.gz
> doesn't exist, try unpacking <package>.tar.bz2.
> But this would be only a temporary solution. Maybe the user doesn't want to
> use the other one.
> 
> Also, I don't like the idea of putting just bare package names into the
> profiles (without the extensions). They would look a bit confusing (same as
> directories for example).
> 
> Neven

-- 
<atark at thepipeline.net>
<andy at tarkinson dot com>





More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list