Syntax ( long )

atark at atark at
Mon Jun 25 20:27:56 PDT 2001

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.

>   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.

> > Also, I really don't think it looks cleaner - it is cleaner that that
> > particular example, but that was only a preliminary definition anyway.
>   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 

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