Updated syntax.txt (was: looking for syntax wor...)

atark at thepipeline.net atark at thepipeline.net
Fri Jan 12 16:07:24 PST 2001


I'll take all comments into consideration and make more changes this
weekend.

--Andy


Neven Has wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 01:56:09AM +0000, Bryan Dumm wrote:
> > > 1. Is it really necessary to have both tag and notag scenerious in
> > > ALFS?  Seems a bit confusing and not consistent in a few places.  Seems
> > > like either one or the other makes more sense depending on which tag.
> >
> > So far umm yes, unless people want to kill the notag scenario....
> 
> This one does. :)
> 
> > Tag value: alternate configure command (!= "./configure")
> >
> > what does this mean?
> 
> I assume the configure command that is _not_ "./configure".
> Like "../gcc-2.95.2/configure" for example. I agree it's a bit confusing.
> 
> > on the FIXME: NET YET IMPLEMENTED!
> 
> FIXME: NOT YET IMPLEMENTED!
> FIXME: NOTE YET IMPLEMENTED!
> FIXME: NET YET IMPLEMENTED!
> 
> And the answer is ... FIXME: NOT YET IMPLEMENTED! !!!
> 
> 5 points :)
> 
> > what are we going to do with those elements????
> 
> <makefs>
> 
>         I'm not sure if there is way other then system command?
> 
> <permissions>
> 
>         We should implement it (MAKEDEV, yacc, makewhatis, files in /var,
>         scripts, etc. And not just for LFS profile.)
> 
> <setenv>/<unsetenv>
> 
>         It's not really needed, but it can make things look prettier?
> 
> There are a few more typos (mainly in examples) but it's a good work in
> general and will help us a lot.
> 
> Neven

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





More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list