Syntax, shall we?

Mark Ellis mark.uzumati at virgin.net
Sun Feb 3 04:38:57 PST 2002


On 2002.02.01 18:06 Neven Has wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 10:08:52AM +0000, revo at sion.mty.itesm.mx
> wrote:
> > > Nono, i'm talking about ditching entire support for multiple
> targets per
> > > mkdir tag, so like instead;
> > >
> > > <mkdir>&LFS;/usr/share/man/man1</mkdir>
> > > <mkdir>&LFS;/usr/share/man/man2</mkdir>
> > > <mkdir>&LFS;/usr/share/man/man3</mkdir>
> > > <mkdir>&LFS;/usr/share/man/man4</mkdir>
> > > <mkdir>&LFS;/usr/share/man/man5</mkdir>
> > > <mkdir>&LFS;/usr/share/man/man6</mkdir>
> > > <mkdir>&LFS;/usr/share/man/man7</mkdir>
> > > <mkdir>&LFS;/usr/share/man/man8</mkdir>
> >
> > <command>mkdir &LFS;/usr/share/man/man{1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8}</command>
> >
> > Sorry, I couldn't handle the temptation to support sh.
> 
> This might be the reason for keeping <base> and multiple targets. I
> can
> imagine lot of people using <execute> to save some typing and profile
> size.
> 
> Although it _is_ nice when every directory has its own element,
> without
> extra nesting.
> 
> 

Ouch, definitely put me down for keeping <base> and multiple targets. 
Anything that may encourage profile writers to use <execute> instead of 
the other available tags is IMO a bad thing. A string of separate, full 
path <mkdir>s is also less readable too.

I think the <dir> and <base> combination in <mkdir> is causing 
confusion aswell. Why not replace <dir> ie. the name of the directory 
we're creating, with <name>. Since the action has been specified as 
<mkdir> this should then be self explanatory ?

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