Example, thoughs?

Mark Ellis mark.uzumati at virgin.net
Tue Mar 19 06:23:02 PST 2002


Bit late replying to this :)

On 2002.03.04 10:01 Jesse Tie-Ten-Quee wrote:
> Yo,
> 
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 11:36:57AM +0100, Neven Has wrote:
> > Actually, only <options> are used for elements like <copy>, <link>,
> > <move> etc. for things like "force", "archive" etc. <param> is still
> > used for <configure> and <make>.
> 
> I know.  I was trying to see if i could replace param with option ;)
> 
> > But we could perhaps use a single element (<option(s)>) for both
> cases?
> > Although they are not really the same thing - with the <configure>
> and
> > <make>, they are just appended to the executable and executed as a
> system
> > command, while with <copy> and friends they are recognized, after
> which
> > the parser acts accordingly (depending on the implementation).
> 
> Maybe.  This is where nitpicking can get annoying, so many small
> details
> need to be worked out ;)  What if we used empty tags like <archive />,
> <force /> and so forth?

This idea is interesting, i think i could grow to like this, anyone 
else have an opinion ? An alternative might be to set attributes with 
values of 1 ?

> 
> > I guess you are using a symbolic linking as a default here? I'll
> have to
> > change that in nALFS too, which now requires that the type is
> specified
> > (not sure why I did that).
> 
> Uh, yes.  It's default and i presently have no support for hardlinks
> *g*
> 
> I guess, if you follow what i was mentioning above we could go with
> <soft /> and <hard />.
> 
> > This is becoming confusing. :) <base> or <dir>? If we start using
> <dir>
> > again, what shell we do with <mkdir>?
> 
> Well, i'm still confused about what everyone suggesting the best
> method
> would be.  So i've continued to use what i've always used.
> 
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~highos/directory_structure.xml
> 

What was this showing ? I only get a 404.

> Is an example of my idea of just letting mkdir have no arguments.
> Dunno
> still.  I've been thinking about your and Mark conserts about having
> additional options for such things as copy, link, move, etc.. so mkdir
> problably falls under that category also.
> 
> However, i still think mixing base and dir together is not a good
> idea.
> 

Mark
-- 
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