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

atark at thepipeline.net atark at thepipeline.net
Mon Jan 15 12:08:20 PST 2001


OK, I'm back in action!  I've started makeing updates to the updated
syntax file.  <hint>I still need CVS access or someone to commit for
me.</hint>.

Read on, I've made comments below.

> > > > 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.

Exactly the reason why I asked about the purpose of needing both
tag/notag scenerio. The notag scenerio seems to work best with
oneliners.  Personally I tend to like notags better.  In many cases the
choice for the parameter that goes between them seems arbitrary.

> > > 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?
> >

Any agreements here on what we are going to do?  I'll take a look at the
updated profiles/code and see if anything has changed.

--Andy



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





More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list