Syntax, shall we?
mark.uzumati at virgin.net
Fri Feb 15 11:43:12 PST 2002
On 2002.02.13 07:46 Jesse Tie-Ten-Quee wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 03, 2002 at 12:38:40PM +0000, Mark Ellis wrote:
> > I wouldn't object to a renaming of these, but i'm not convinced by
> > these suggestions. Setup sounds more like system configuration, and
> > install implies that is all the step should contain, whereas there
> > might actually be _setup_ requirements.
> Well, setup here is suppose to imply whatever you need todo before the
> building stage, while install is suppose to imply the process of
> installing the package;
Thats what i mean, i know what you actually intend them to be, i just
don't think they sound right.
> So, the four major tags:
> o info
> Deals with metadate, it's name and version presently.
> seems to agree this is a good move as it will allow us to
> in the future. (description, homepage, author, license, etc)
> o setup
> Deals with setting up the package for building. Here we run
> the configure script with a default prefix of /usr.
> o build
> Does the actually building of the package.
> o install
> Deals with the actuall install process of the package. This
> where the executables and support files get installed, along
> with configuration files and so forth.
> I've just been using setup/install mostly because i don't like the
> of prebuild/postbuild. This just imples the tags under there
> placeholders are suppose to fall into there category.
> [PS, You may be wondering where the unpacking and removing of the
> tarball is. One reason i moved it here is that they don't actually
> with any of the placeholders. the unpacking of the tarball could
> possibly fit under setup, however the removing would not fit in the
> install process. One option would be to add another tag, such as
> cleanup or what not.. or even just throw it in install anyways.
This is exactly why i dont like <install>, it sounds more like a "make
install" command than a grouping of the final stages in building a
package. <postbuild> (and prebuild) may not be great but i think they
are more expressive in terms of what they actually are.
> One idea i've been playing with is, is unpacking all the tarballs at
> start of the chapter, then removing them at the end of the chapter.
> This would require more disk space and so forth, and does spread the
> package install process all over the place.. but it's an idea.
> On the other hand, that would kinda suck for individual package. And
> what happens if say the idea of skipping a package comes into play,
> you end up unpacking and removing that skipped package for nothing,
> waste of resources and cycles]
I dont like this at all, and it would also completely mess up including
one or two packages from a large profile with anything like XPath just
by specifying the package name.
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