Syntax, shall we?

Mark Ellis 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">
> or
> <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 
window.

Mark
-- 
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