LFS profile using the new syntax

Jason Gurtz jason at tommyk.com
Thu Oct 25 08:28:07 PDT 2001

> I agree, but the problem with this is - there are a lot of 
> parameters which
> would need a new attributes (I look at <patch> as a 
> has_to_be_a_system_command
> so I don't count it here). For example: -p for mkdir, -a for 
> copy, -f for link
> etc. etc.
> OTOH, we could always add new attributes latter, without 
> making the new syntax
> incompatible with the previous (very important of course).
> So we might as well start doing that now.

I like this way of thinking about it; it makes sense.

> > 4) <base> is fuzzy, how about <dir>, and use <target> as 
> > the directory to be created in <mkdir> ?
> I wanted it to be a bit more self explanatory. I agree that 
> <base> is not the
> best solution (and not even very self explanatory now that I 
> think about it
> again), but <dir> doesn't say much neither.
> That should be a directory which we immediately change to, so 
> maybe something
> like <current>, <current_dir> or... just <dir> ? ;)

Maybe <baseDir> or <base_dir> or maybe <inBaseDir>?


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