cvs commit: ALFS syntax.txt

Jesse Tie-Ten-Quee highos at
Thu Apr 4 12:45:29 PST 2002


On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 12:08:56PM +0100, Neven Has wrote:
> Apologies if I'm repeating something somebody already said or suggested
> (or repeating myself for that matter). I'm lost in these e-mails. :)

Heh.  I am *so* lost right now.  I don't know who said what anymore..

> The problem is a big difference between <options> from <copy>
> and <param> here.

I know, but personally i don't see it as being that much of a big

> Here, its content is just appended, independently of parser and the way
> it's implementing the handlers.

Ok, Well..

The only tags that an implementation should just append is <execute>,
<make> and <configure>.  Those are the _only_ tags, afiak.  So, do we
make an exeception in this regard?  Or just use <parameter>?

Id prefer to just use <option> and make sure we are clear on it's proper
usage then mixing up <parameter> and <option>.  I just really like
<option> over <parameter>, that's all.

Dunno.. hopefully you will all reply agreeing with me and making my
simple... [ya right! ;)]

> Well I like the idea of generalizing <permissions>, but there must be a
> simpler, and a bit shorter format. Maybe something with using attributes?
> I haven't give it too much thought, so no ideas here.

Well, i'm fresh out of ideas then ;)

> Anyway, the place this issue is most visible is <mkdir>, so we could use
> it as an example.
    <base />
    <target />
    <option />

How about that then?

So you can still do like;

    <target>bin sbin usr</target>

Dunno.. <target> or <name>, hrm.  None are really that great you start
adding multiple target directories inside there entries.

> So I would vote for leaving the _structure_ the way it is now, and only
> rename the elements. <name> (as suggested elsewhere) might be a good
> idea. <root> or <dir> instead of <base> are options too.

    <base />
    <target|name />
    <option />

Then?  I was leaning towards <target> for a while, then I switched to
<name> now i'm unsure if it's really that applicable for either really.
Like if they are suppose to list multliple directory targets...

Id prefer to use either <target /> or <name /> over all, to be
consistent with all other tags.  So this would affect like <move />,
<copy />, <link />, etc.

Jesse Tie-Ten-Quee  ( highos at linuxfromscratch dot org )
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at
and put 'unsubscribe alfs-discuss' in the subject header of the message

More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list