Lots of ideas
al593181 at mail.mty.itesm.mx
Mon Jan 14 08:36:06 PST 2002
On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 09:56:54PM +0000, Mark Ellis wrote:
> 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.
Well, my idea of a "package" is something that packs something, like
sources. Anyway I'll like to know what can englobe packages and groups
of commands, a "setup" might be, or "entity".
But, yes, it shall work altought I think it's not neater.
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