cvs commit: ALFS syntax.txt
dsaferite at internet.lu
Thu Apr 4 13:05:43 PST 2002
On Thu, 4 Apr 2002 12:45:29 -0800
Jesse Tie-Ten-Quee <highos at linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 12:08:56PM +0100, Neven Has wrote:
> > 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! ;)]
I'll say this. The parser (nALFS, etc) should be intelligent enought to
strip out parser 'options' and pass on the rest. I mean, once the
syntax is decided upon, there will be specific options that the parser
should recognize and possible implement. Once those are removed, in the
case of make, execute, and configure, then you would pass on the rest of
the options verbatim.
> > 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.
Well, you could try
> > 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 />
I would think <root> might get confused with changinf the root ala
chroot. and <dir>... dunno, doesn't seem right. <base> is different,
but I cant think of a better one either. I would think it says the
'base' of the filename/dirname is BLAH and the 'name' of the file/dir is
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