Syntax (was syntax.txt)

atark at atark at
Mon Jun 25 20:13:03 PDT 2001

On Monday 25 June 2001 05:33 pm, you wrote:
> 	This post got me really thinking, but it didn't really hit me 'til I got
> up to writing about the <config> tag.  I think maybe now is good time to
> really re-conceptualize the naming/usage of tags and what and how things
> are mandatory.

I think as a rule things should not be manditory.  Not to say nothing would 
be manditory but just as little as possible.  Otherwise you lose flexability.

> 	Here is my proposal for a template profile:
> <package>
> 	<name />
> 	<version />
> 	<pre>
> 	</pre>
> 	<build>
> 	</build>
> 	<post>
> 	</post>
> </package>

I'm thinking along the lines of 
<package><name /><version />
   <build />
   <install />

Other tags like <post /> or <cleanup /> may be appropriate.  The reason for 
my proposal is taking into consideration package management.  Isn't the only 
reason for separating phases for things like package management? If you want 
to track the installed files you really only need a separate build and 
install phase.  Also these should not be manditory.  What if I did not care 
about package management?  I could just put my commands directly under the 
package tag.

> <unpack></unpack> with mandatory sub-tags <src /> and <dest /> and optional
> tag(s) <param />

What if I wanted to define a global archive directory and unpack directory?  
I would then not need to use <src /> and <dest />.  Here is what I would like 
to be able to do for a simple package.  

<package name=bash ver=2.05>
		<unpack />
		<configure />
		<make />
		<make_install />

on the unpack tag for example, the default src attribute would be 
$ARCHIVE_DIR/$NAME-$  The profiles would be much simpler if some 
sensible defaults could be configured.

atark at

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