new profiles for hungry ALFSer

Mark Ellis mark.uzumati at virgin.net
Mon Oct 1 10:49:17 PDT 2001


I'm all for splitting profiles with something like an <include>, after
having just trawled through some of the Xlink documentation it seems a
touch over the top for what we need. The <depends_on> idea is good too, but
is going to be _way_ more complex, package management ideas anyone ? I
haven't got any further than producing lists of installed files.

Mark

On 2001.09.28 20:36 Neven Has wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 11:54:32AM +0200, Nicolas Nieswandt wrote:
> > >Actually, this brings up a thought I had on the version 2 syntax.  I
> had
> > >thought a while back that it might be a really good thing to have a
> > >profile be a set of profiles, one for each package, and have a master
> > >profile that tied them togeather in the right order.  Basicaly, the
> > >topic of dependency checking and/or parallel building got me thinking
> > >about that.  I thought that perhaps, eventually, it whould be easy to
> > >add this version, and dependency information to each package profile.
> > >It whould also seem to make it slightly easier to keep up with
> > >book/package revisions.
> > >
> > >Dunno, anyone want to comment on that?
> > 
> > Like the way I thought, but I don't know how to patch nALFS to
> understand
> > XLink ( more infos http://www.w3.org/TR/xlink/ )
> > 
> > I already wrote about that, I thought it might look like this.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Yes, it looks interesting and useful. I'm not sure about xlink, but we
> can
> add our own tags like <include>, or <source> or something like that?
> 
> I think that would be much better, since we can make them to completely
> suit ALFS needs. Like:
> 
> <include type="package">
>     <name>Glibc</name>
>     <version>2.2.4</version>
> 
>     <!-- Multiple locations allowed -->
>     <location>
>         http://alfs.linuxfromscratch.org/profiles/base/glibc.xml
>         /alternative/location/glibc.xml
>     </location>
> 
>     <!-- Names from <package> tag -->
>     <depends_on>
>         bash binutils diffutils fileutils gcc grep
>         gzip make mawk sed sh-utils textutils
>     </depends_on>
> <include>
> 
> or something similar?
> 
> > I have just another idea. Above I mentioned "basch-static.xml" and
> > "bash.xml" and I think this two should be in one file.
> > 
> > There could be a attribute <package type="static"> and the attributes
> > could be uses even for eg. vim <package type="with-x-support">
> 
> Yes, but IMHO, it doesn't really belongs to <package> attributes.
> 
> Perhaps a new <option> tag, there all different (and optional) parts of
> the profile would be. Something like:
> 
> <package name="fileutils" version="&fileutils-version;">
>     . . .
>     <option name="ugly_seds" description="Use these if you start
> getting...">
>         seds for fileutils
>     </option>
>     . . .
> </package>
> 
> Then, from the frontend, you could choose if you want to include this,
> exclude that etc. I think that would be really nice. :)
> 
> > But first let's start with the basics of a new syntax. ( or two? one
> for
> > the different host specific master profiles and one for the packages ?)
> 
> I'm going to start implementing and pushing the new syntax slowly.
> As I go, I expect to see what's possibly missing from the syntax Jason
> posted,
> so I'll comment it and maybe add a few suggestions then.
> 
> 
> Neven
> 
> -- 
> Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
> and put 'unsubscribe alfs-discuss' in the subject header of the message
> 
-- 
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