mark.uzumati at virgin.net
Mon Apr 1 14:16:40 PST 2002
On 2002.04.01 23:10 Jesse Tie-Ten-Quee wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 12:02:30AM +0200, Lee Saferite wrote:
> > <stage name="Prebuild - unpacking & configureing package">
> > ...
> > </stage>
> I was going to recommend this again, to reply to an earlier e-mail you
> sent, thou it looks like you and Neven seem to being sending e-mail
> after e-mail so i just had to scrap 20min of writting ;p :)
It's crazy isn't it, veryone on happy pills or something :)
> > 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 is
> > 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 the idea of a generic stag element that we can specify a name
> it, makes sense. Especially if we keep it simple. Now, adding stuff
> like the su/group/user/env things is neat. And i see where it makes
> However, the use of <stageinfo><name>blah</name</stageinfo> per <stage
> /> is just..well.. like c'mon. Were aiming for KISS, aren't we?
I think having name as an attrib solves this neatly. <stageinfo> is now
not necessary unless you want to do something "special", which will be
a minority case i think. Just using this as a generic container becomes
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