planned failure

Jesse Tie-Ten-Quee highos at linuxfromscratch.org
Mon Mar 4 02:20:18 PST 2002


Yo,

On Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 10:43:41PM -0700, Brendan Taylor wrote:
> At this time though, there isn't any other option for ALFS... unless you 
> want to have a seperate profile for each package, su-ing between users for
> the pre-build/post-build.

You can have seperate profiles for each package.  You can make it as
modular or as monolithic as you want.  As for the su'ing, i'll leave
that be for now.  Interesting idea, however something i doubt we need to
touch for now.  [if not, please correct me ;p]

> If you really wanted something to succeed you could do an
> <execute>command || true</execute>
>
> I know we don't like <execute>s much, but I think they're preferable to
> adding an option of limited usefulness.  I think it's important to keep
> the syntax simple so that writing parsers is not a chore.

This is not a bad idea actually.  I've not heard a more elegant approach
actually.  I've heard ppl suggesting we add an property or element to
each affecting tag..  How many cases do we think this may arise?  Like i
mentioned, implementor's could just add an option about ignoring such things,
or we use a solution like that or we add even more complexity to the
syntax... *rambles on* hrm.

It's not the best, thou.. it's problably the simplest approach we could
take.

-- 
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 mailing list