Syntax, shall we?

Mark Ellis mark.uzumati at
Fri Feb 15 11:43:12 PST 2002

On 2002.02.13 07:46 Jesse Tie-Ten-Quee wrote:
> Yo,
> 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
> actualy
> installing the package;

Thats what i mean, i know what you actually intend them to be, i just 
don't think they sound right.

> <package>
>     <info>
> 	<name>wget</name>
> 	<version>1.8.1</version>
>     </info>
>     <setup>
> 	<configure>
> 	    <dir>/path/to/wget-1.8.1</dir>
> 	    <option>--prefix=/usr</option>
> 	</configure>
>     <setup>
>     <build>
> 	<make>
> 	    <dir>/path/to/wget-1.8.1</dir>
> 	</make>
>     </build>
>     <install>
> 	<make>
> 	    <dir>/path/to/wget-1.8.1</dir>
> 	    <option>install</option>
> 	</make>
>     </install>
> </package>
> So, the four major tags:
>     o info
> 	Deals with metadate, it's name and version presently.
> Everyone
> 	seems to agree this is a good move as it will allow us to
> expand
> 	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
> is
> 	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
> idea
> of prebuild/postbuild.  This just imples the tags under there
> respected
> 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
> fit
> 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
> the
> 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,
> then
> 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
and put 'unsubscribe alfs-discuss' in the subject header of the message

More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list