Syntax, shall we?
mark.uzumati at virgin.net
Fri Jan 25 02:09:11 PST 2002
On 2002.01.24 18:15 Neven Has wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 07:35:59AM -0800, Jesse Tie-Ten-Quee wrote:
> > Some tags we were using, like <patch>, <link>, <copy> and so forth,
> > 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?
> Yeah, this is why instead of "-f" and friends, we added
> <options>force</options> and friends. Not a perfect solution,
> but definitely better.
> What do you thing about this issue BTW (I haven't covered this in
> my other mail)?
Slight aside, or maybe not, i've been thinking we should split the
archive <option> into recursive and keep_permissions to be a bit more
flexible, providing someone doesn't come up with a better idea of
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