haski at sezampro.yu
Wed Feb 27 02:36:57 PST 2002
On Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 07:49:33PM -0800, Jesse Tie-Ten-Quee wrote:
> Go ahead and nitpick!
I'm glad you said that. ;)
> I don't think we talked about the switch from
> param to option. It was just something i picked up from nALFS.
Actually, only <options> are used for elements like <copy>, <link>,
<move> etc. for things like "force", "archive" etc. <param> is still
used for <configure> and <make>.
But we could perhaps use a single element (<option(s)>) for both cases?
Although they are not really the same thing - with the <configure> and
<make>, they are just appended to the executable and executed as a system
command, while with <copy> and friends they are recognized, after which
the parser acts accordingly (depending on the implementation).
I guess you are using a symbolic linking as a default here? I'll have to
change that in nALFS too, which now requires that the type is specified
(not sure why I did that).
This is becoming confusing. :) <base> or <dir>? If we start using <dir>
again, what shell we do with <mkdir>?
These are also different. Personally I prefer <target> and <name> - I think
they are clearer (name of the link and target to which it points to) and
they are also used by ln(1) which is what people are already used to?
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