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

Neven Has haski at sezampro.yu
Mon Jan 15 12:38:51 PST 2001


On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 03:08:20PM -0500, atark at thepipeline.net wrote:
> 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.

2:1 for killing "no tag scenario". ;) 
Although I may change my mind, that "oneliners" point is a good one.
And implementing it in the backend is very easy. We should only decide what
to do when the both "scenarios" are there.

> > > <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.

<makefs>
Probably won't exist. 
You can delete that part (but save it somewhere just in case :).

<permissions>
I won't repeat myself. :)

<setenv>/<unsetenv>
Gerard made a good point on alfs-discuss. 
First I thought that it could be a system command but that it would look nicer 
if we have a tag. Now I'm not sure if it could even be a system command which 
will work in every case (think different shells for example).
So it will probably be added.

Neven







More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list