Syntax, shall we?
highos at linuxfromscratch.org
Fri Jan 25 04:36:23 PST 2002
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 05:46:38PM -0500, reb0rn wrote:
> a log tag for <make> or more importantly make_install. Jesse i know we
> spoke of this and you thought this should be done by the implementation.
> But i think it might be worthwhile to build it into the syntax, and I'd
> like to here what everyone else thinks about it.
My views havne't changed. It's childs play todo this in an
implementation if you ask me, no point in polluting the syntax when all
you would have todo is add an extra command line switch or turn on an
option when you run the profiles.
> or maybe even <switch>
> <mode>append</mode> also (overwrite,insert #) where #is line number
> <dump>actual stuff to be dumped</dump>
uhh.. these two tags have always rubbed me the wrong way. I was hoping
on replacing them or at least making them a little more sane. I'll be
posting a few ideas on this soon.
> One more :), this isn't my idea but it was brought up by someone else and
> i liked it.
> for multilined commands. Also i think this would make the profiles a bit
> easier to read, at least for those who seem to be anti XML
Well, you know how i feel about this. We had a big discussion on #LFS
the other night about ALFS, alot of issues were brough up.
I understand why such a tag could be needed, but i honestly don't really
want to implement it. We are trying to make things more portable.
Adding shell scripts to the table doesn't help in that regard.
And i don't remenber anyone giving me that much of an example of how
it's that much better.... :)
Jesse Tie-Ten-Quee ( highos at linuxfromscratch dot org )
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