Lots of ideas
mark.uzumati at virgin.net
Sun Jan 13 13:56:54 PST 2002
On 2002.01.13 02:50 Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 02:57:24PM +0100, Neven Has wrote:
> > Well, it _is_ implementation-specific problem and we shouldn't
> really work
> > that way - adding stuff to ALFS to make parsers easier to write.
> > But as I said (I think I did, I can't remember - been a bit busy
> lately :),
> > I like the idea of some sort of grouping. If nothing else, it will
> > profiles look better and more organized.
> I'm glad you saw my point :)
> Pros: More organization, better look, easier parsing.
> Cons: More typing
> PS. Yeah you told you've been busy, but on a personal mail.
An alternative to creating another grouping elament might be to just
use a <package> with an appropriate name. For instance, using the LFS
book as an example, there is no reason you shouldn't have:-
The initial directory setup could be called "system_dirs". Other stuff
like "essential software configuration" could go in "system_conf" or
instead placed in the appropriate package build. I think this would be
neater than having a <group> element.
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