Syntax, shall we?

Felipe Contreras al593181 at mail.mty.itesm.mx
Thu Jan 24 10:26:53 PST 2002


On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 03:59:54AM -0800, Jesse Tie-Ten-Quee wrote:
>     o Issues that I consider we should hold off.
> 
> 	Package Management, "Smart Profiles" or adding extra meta data
> 	are things i'd like to ignore untill we have an initial release
> 	finished.  And just concentrate on making a simple, working,
> 	build system.  However, feel free to discuess these topics if
> 	you want, just remenber that the goal of this thread is for us
> 	to agree on a common syntax.

Well, I think we should not hold of smart profiles, at least not
completely since we'll surely use them, so I purpose to consider them
deeply.

I ask you? do we want simple profiles easy to write withouth any
bells and whistles, forgeting about the scalability in the future?

Or do we want complex profiles, capable of doing everything, fully
capable of scale them in the future, but hard to write?

I'm sure we can have BOTH, but we need to think a little bit more
different. The idea is to have different layers of information
processing smartly. So if I give for examle "mutt-1.3.27i.tar.gz" as
some data, some code is going to process all the information it have in
the different layers in order to produce an ultimate profile, complex,
that have all the information necesary, but done automatically.

Don't think about me purposing something totally different, think about
spliting the information into different parts and use some code to glue
them and generate a more complex profile.

I know this is something about "Smart Profiles" and you said to hold
that off, but I think if we don't consider that we'll desing a format
that will not be scalabe, at first instance will seem the best because
it's simple and easy to write.

-- 
Felipe Contreras
-- 
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 mailing list