mark.uzumati at virgin.net
Mon Apr 1 14:10:46 PST 2002
On 2002.04.01 23:02 Lee Saferite wrote:
> > Anyway, after writing this, I'm not sure about <stage> any more. :/
> > It's hard to see what the stage really is - you have to find a
> > stageInfo, then search for name and finally read it. Simple elements
> > that describe themselves (<build>, <chroot> and others) make a
> > much easier for reading.
> well, the problem, IMHO, with the <*build> elements is that you are
> constrained in how you build a profile. Is locks you into using
> <prebuild> <build> <postbuild>, and it doesn't allow the flexability
> nesting the containers. Without the nesting, you have the <setenv>
> <su> problems. you end up with around 6 or so major container
> instead of <package> and <stage>. while looking at <stage>, maybe it
> a bit different in the fact that you specify a <name> element inside
> <*info> element, but with <*build> you are just making the 'name'
> into the DTD. Dunno. Guess I like the <stage> idea too much. I'll
> up now.
I think this is the main advantage of <stage> over having separate
<su>, <setenv> etc parents. It isn't the number of elements perse, but
nesting them all, both in terms of readability and implementation.
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