Syntax, shall we?
mark.uzumati at virgin.net
Sun Feb 3 04:38:30 PST 2002
On 2002.02.01 10:08 revo at sion.mty.itesm.mx wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 07:53:48AM -0800, Jesse Tie-Ten-Quee wrote:
> > Yo,
> > On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 04:05:23PM +0100, Neven Has wrote:
> > > This looks good to me, including <setup> and <install> instead of
> > > <prebuild> and <postbuild>.
> > Anyone else have anything to say about it? Cause i've never really
> > liked <prebuild> or <postbuild> after we started redoing the syntax.
> I like <setup> and <install> altought I like more <step name="conf">
> <conf> so we can have as many steps as necesary.
I'm kinda torn on this. On the one hand this could then be adapted for
the miscellaneous grouping that has been bandied around for a while, on
the other i wouldn't want to have too many generic elements available,
since it's all too easy for any structuring to go straight out the
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