<permissions> and perhaps <owner> ?

Neven Has haski at sezampro.yu
Sun Apr 14 05:35:35 PDT 2002

Surprise, surprise, more syntax fun... ;)

There will be a few new things in nALFS in the next version (thanks
to Maik Schreiber):

o   <permissions> will have <options>recursive</options>.

o   <owner> (with <base>, <user>, <group> and <name> inside it and
    recursive option) will be implemented.

o   <log> element will be added, for logging messages only (don't panic
    at this point, see below).

Because of many syntax improvements like this, that might be added in
the future by other people, I've decided to add a macro like
USE_NALFS_EXTENDED_SYNTAX (or similar) that will make a difference
between the official ALFS syntax and some handlers that won't be part of
it. It will NOT be defined by default, so only the ALFS official syntax
will be allowed from the start.

Anyway, now to the syntax...

First, something like <log> is not even to be considered for syntax
including. :) So just ignore it.

Second, I think that recursive option for <permissions> is a good idea?
It's not some big change and it would be useful to allow it?

Also, there is an issue about <permissions> and <owner> - having one
without the other is a bit strange IMHO. I think we should either use
both (doesn't have to be called "owner"), or none of them?

I would vote for both myself. In LFS profile chown is used 6 times,
which is also a good reason to add it (but not the main one).


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