Syntax, shall we?

Jesse Tie-Ten-Quee highos at
Thu Jan 24 07:35:59 PST 2002


On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 09:17:11AM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I've been following this list a while and thought I'd jump in.  In my 
> opinion, alfs is something that should not be done before doing lfs and 
> some of blfs.  For that reason, the prtability issue should be across 
> hardware, but not base software systems.  The assumption on base 
> software should be a prior version of lfs, either on a hard disk or from 
> a cd where a lfs system has been burned.

I was actually talking about syntax portability, but this is also
something that ALFS implementor's should consider on there own.  If they
don't, the end result could be that ALFS only runs on LFS systems and
can't be used from a distro, that would suck ;)  (ok, Linux is %99 the
same, but you know..)

Some tags we were using, like <patch>, <link>, <copy> and so forth, you
could actually supply command line options.  This is totally non
portable.  What if someone wrote an implementation and all the
functality of <link> was done with system calls?

Granted, for some tags, command line options must be available.  For
example <make> and <configure>.

Jesse Tie-Ten-Quee  ( highos at linuxfromscratch dot org )
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