<setenv>, <stage>

Jesse Tie-Ten-Quee highos at linuxfromscratch.org
Mon Apr 1 14:04:09 PST 2002


Yo,

On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 11:37:28PM +0200, Neven Has wrote:
> It is totally independent of it, and nothing tells it that <setenv> might
> _needs_ to be executed first.

Nono.. wait a minute here.  How can it make that much of a difference?

Like even with <stage> you don't -start- executing at <configure>, you
have to start at <stage> or you won't get the stuff that it sets.  So i
fail to see what the difference is.

Not to mention stuff like using this for base/dir and relative paths.
What happens when you have multiple nested <stage>'s that depend on each
other.  But you want to skip to the second one in the nest...uh...

> But if <configure> is _inside_ <setenv>, as its child, it would be obvious
> that it needs it.

Ok, yes.  It does make it alot clearer that all these things apply to
all the child tags, but like i mentioned above, that means nothing when
it comes parsing time, imho.

> Anyway, after writing this, I'm not sure about <stage> any more. :/

That's the way i've been thinking.  Like look at what i kept at the
bottom of my e-mail.  It's sick.  Way to much nesting, imho.  This is
suppose to be _simple_.  Dunno, i think it is a very good idea.  But for
1.0?  I dunno.

> 	<package>
> 		<packageInfo>
> 			<name>binutils</name>
> 			<version>&binutils-version;</version>
> 		</packageInfo>
> 
> 		<stage>
> 			<stageInfo>
> 				<name>Unpacking and configuring.</name>
> 			</stageInfo>
> 	
> 			<unpack>
> 				<archive>&LFS;&packages_dir;/&binutils-package;</archive>
> 				<destination>&LFS;&build_dir;</destination>
> 			</unpack>
> 
> 			<mkdir>
> 				<dir>&LFS;&build_dir;/binutils-build</dir>
> 			</mkdir>
> 
> 			<configure>
> 				<base>&LFS;&build_dir;/binutils-build</base>
> 				<command>../&binutils-directory;/configure</command>
> 				<param>--prefix=&LFS;/usr</param>
> 				<param>--disable-nls</param>
> 			</configure>
> 		</stage>
> 
> 		<stage>
> 			<stageInfo>
> 				<name>Compiling a package.</name>
> 			</stageInfo>
> 	
> 			<make>
> 				<base>&LFS;&build_dir;/binutils-build</base>
> 				<param>LDFLAGS=-all-static</param>
> 				<param>tooldir=&LFS;/usr</param>
> 			</make>
> 		</stage>
> 
> 		<stage>
> 			<stageInfo>
> 				<name>Installing a package.</name>
> 			</stageInfo>
> 	
> 			<make>
> 				<base>&LFS;&build_dir;/binutils-build</base>
> 				<param>tooldir=&LFS;/usr</param>
> 				<param>install</param>
> 			</make>
> 		</stage>
> 
> 		<stage>
> 			<stageInfo>
> 				<name>Clean up.</name>
> 			</stageInfo>
> 
> 			<remove>&LFS;&build_dir;/&binutils-directory;</remove>
> 			<remove>&LFS;&build_dir;/binutils-build</remove>
> 		</stage>
> 	</package>

Not to mention with using stage like this, if you use a standard three
placeholder tags, like above, you are adding _9_ extra lines/tags per
package.

Dunno.. seems like a lot of extra complexity for so little gain.

-- 
Jesse Tie-Ten-Quee  ( highos at linuxfromscratch dot org )
-- 
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