Syntax, shall we?

Jesse Tie-Ten-Quee highos at
Mon Jan 28 08:14:54 PST 2002


On Sat, Jan 26, 2002 at 01:36:55PM +0100, Neven Has wrote:
> Yes, but how well is this implemented in libxml for example? I haven't
> played that much with it, so I can't say how well it would handle
> downloading errors or how easy would it be to write that handling around it?

I honestly haven't looked into it that much when it comes to libxml2.
One more reason it should be put off till later :)  Allthough the
implementation afiak, isn't perfect nor does it implement everything, it
does work. (past that point, i'm not sure yet, will be something i'll
[eventually] be looking into)

> And element for building instructions, like <instructions>? :)

Hrm, maybe.  Can't we just group the meta data with it's own tag and
leave the instructions group tags alone? considering that's really what
they are.. thoughs? eg;





[BTW: Yes i know <setup> and <install> are tags we aren't presently
using, just something i've personally been playing around with, using
<prebuild> and <postbuild> just isn't fun ;)]

Either way works, thoughs?

> What about <configure> and <make>? They don't _have_ to use something like
> <base> (especially <make> with its -C), but IMO, it's much much cleaner
> this way.

Actually, i was speaking more about having *both* <base> and <dir>.  And
afiak, i can't really think of all that many tags that need to have
both, apart from the fact of making it easier todo multiple operations
at once.  Oh and les typing involved ;)

> Yes, but as you said, without <base>-like tag we would have a ton of
> <mkdir> tags. And it would look silly, since they would all have the same
> "base" (heh) directory.

Dunno, i'm game to ditch it.. i honestly don't mind spending an extra
5min typing^H^H^H^H^H^Hcopy+pasting.

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