A bad thing about ALFS in c

Neven Has haski at sezampro.yu
Fri Nov 9 13:02:15 PST 2001

On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 12:05:44PM -0600, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> Well the idea of a backed bash script is good, but there are still
> things missing. For example, how does the shell know if the input is a
> series of lines, but all of them is a single command, like 'for x in *'
> and so on. There is also the thing about dividing the commands into
> steps.

I think it's always a good thing for instructions to be divided into
the smallest "chunks" as possible. They can be always grouped together,
but never split logically good enough.

If the backend is written in bash, it shouldn't really matter if the input
is a series of lines or not. It would just execute all those "chunks" one
by one (in the same shell).

> I did something like that for sourcer and it worked well, but I'm
> not sure if it's the best. The problem with it is that the backend again
> doesn't report the status to the c program, so we need a pipe throught
> them with an unused fd, and the bash backend should write to it.

The backend would have to report the status after each of those "chunks".
I'm sure we would find a good way to do that.

> Right now I think that's the best solution, but anyway I feel there
> should be something better, I'm not sure, so I'll just keep thinking,
> but what do you think?
> Might be we should not stick with the idea that there should be one
> backend.

That would be nice. IMO, ALFS should only create a profile syntax and
frontend<->backend communication protocol (IPC in a way). That should be
enough for allowing people to start writing their own frontends and backends.

As you say, let's just keep thinking until we come up with some concrete,
good solution. :)


Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe alfs-discuss' in the subject header of the message

More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list