Syntax, shall we?
haski at sezampro.yu
Fri Feb 1 07:05:23 PST 2002
On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 08:14:54AM -0800, Jesse Tie-Ten-Quee wrote:
> [BTW: Yes i know <setup> and <install> are tags we aren't presently
> using, just something i've personally been playing around with, using
> <prebuild> and <postbuild> just isn't fun ;)]
This looks good to me, including <setup> and <install> instead of
<prebuild> and <postbuild>.
I would still rename <meta> in something more descriptive, but I can't
think of a better name - <info> or something... or not. :)
> > What about <configure> and <make>? They don't _have_ to use something like
> > <base> (especially <make> with its -C), but IMO, it's much much cleaner
> > this way.
> Actually, i was speaking more about having *both* <base> and <dir>. And
> afiak, i can't really think of all that many tags that need to have
> both, apart from the fact of making it easier todo multiple operations
> at once. Oh and les typing involved ;)
Yes, there are no elements requiring both, since <base> could be seen only
as a common part of <dir> content.
> > Yes, but as you said, without <base>-like tag we would have a ton of
> > <mkdir> tags. And it would look silly, since they would all have the same
> > "base" (heh) directory.
> Dunno, i'm game to ditch it.. i honestly don't mind spending an extra
> 5min typing^H^H^H^H^H^Hcopy+pasting.
<dir>man1 man2 man3 man4 man5 man6 man7 man8</dir>
instead? Copy&pasting or not, this is too much for my taste. :)
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