My conclusions

Felipe Contreras al593181 at mail.mty.itesm.mx
Sat Jan 26 19:21:13 PST 2002


On Sat, Jan 26, 2002 at 07:32:45PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Felipe Contreras wrote:
> 
> 
> >* Posible Implementations
> >	From my point of view there are 4 kinds of posible implementations:
> >
> >	1. The xml profile is translated to bash, then executed.
> >	
> >	2. The profile is translated to shell commands and each one of them
> >	is piped to a coshell that executes them and return the status.
> >	
> >	3. Each command is translated to shell command and simply executed
> >	with system() or something.
> >	
> >	4. Each command is handled directly by a system call or function.
> >
> >	Each one of them has it's pros and cons, and it all depend on the
> >	language of the implementation. Probably the implementations will
> >	have to use some sort of convination, since for example an
> >	implementation of the 4th alone will not handle "./configure", ther
> >	is no way to do that without system().
> >
> >	So, if we want to make a good profile we should think about this 4
> >	approaches of executing commands.
> 
> 
> A fifth possibility is to generate a configuration file, say alfs.conf, 
> and have an executable or perl script use the .conf file for input.  The 
> .conf file would guide the executable.
> 
> That said, I vote for option 1.

It might be, but think also on the reverse proccess. Altought I like the
idea I think that's not exactly implementation, but information parsing,
you still need to define what to do with that .conf file and how the get
the job actually done, I think I was talking about the (executer)
implementation.

-- 
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