Syntax ( long )

corey at corey at
Mon Jun 25 08:16:10 PDT 2001

And upon Monday of June 25, the illustrious atark at spake thusly...
> On Monday 25 June 2001 07:52 am, you wrote:
> > > As soon as we start to write in what
> > > command has to be used for a step we lose portability.
> >
> >   Portability?
> >
> >   Last time I looked, cp, mv, rm, patch, ln, configure, and make
> >   were commands all found on every unix system I've ever sat in
> >   front of. Isn't a running *nix environment the main requirment
> >   before installing an LFS system?
> Yes, you lose portability, when you are writing the backend in C, perl, java, 
> ml, python or whatever besides shell you do not care about all the gazillion 
> options you could feed to mv or cp.  Those commands do a simple thing like 
> move file from location a to location b.  That is all you need to define in 
> the XML.  I'm not going to shell a command out when I can use a C function to 
> do the same thing faster and more reliably.

  Ah - so you intend to write a C, perl, java or whatever function ( or 
  pull an equivalent out of your hat ) that does what patch, configure 
  and make do?

  I find that interesting.

  And as for the actual simple commands like cp, mv, rm and such -
  you really prefer to squelch those gazillion options and completely
  refuse to utilize a rich existing codebase? Over *speed* concerns??

  Is ALFS written to be portable across *programming languages*? Is 
  that its goal?  Uh, wow. And what exactly is the usefullness of 
  such an endeavor? To rewrite the backend in different languages
  merely as an excersize perhaps?
  This is getting curiouser and curiouser...

> >   So - then, same difference: either you do a lot of rewriting in
> >   the code ( the program logic ), or you do a lot of rewriting in
> >   the XML... ( chicken and egg, anyone? )
> ...
> Work done on code (for basckend) is done one time.  Work on the XML profile 
> is done many, many times (for each different profile)  The more work the code 
> takes care of, the less that the many XML profile writers have to do.  It's a 
> difference of one person doing more work and many people doing less.

  You must have completely skimmed or totally ignored the rest of
  my email.

> >
> >   Well, that is completely a matter of taste for the most part -
> >   definitely of no real consequence at this stage.
> That's not true.  The harder it is to write a profile the less people who 
> will do so.  Or go create their own.  Which at this point would be counter 
> productive.

  The more restrictions that are placed on the profile, the less usefull
  it will be to *have* a profile. 

  Are you guys desiring for a "custom" bicycle in which you can only
  modify the color and add a few accessories, or would you find the 
  freedom to design the frame, size of wheels, number of gears more
  beneficial to a wider audience?



Unsubscribe: send email to alfs-discuss-request at
and put unsubscribe in the subject header of the message

More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list