Question

Mark Ellis mark.uzumati at virgin.net
Wed Mar 20 02:24:59 PST 2002


On 2002.03.19 23:49 Jesse Tie-Ten-Quee wrote:
> Yo,
> 
Snip
> 
> > Especially considering that we can't decide on a good names for
> those
> > <*build> elements. ;) Adding a generic tag like this wouldn't break
> > the syntax latter on, however we name them.
> 
> Yeah.
> 

Starting to grow on me too. We sound like we're reaching a consensus 
far too easily, this can't happen, quick um, how about the name being 
in an element rather than an attribute :)

> > It could also be a good compromise between those thinking that
> <*build>
> > elements are totally useless, and those thinking they are a Good
> Thing?
> 
> So those that don't like them, wont need to use them?  So like;
> 
Snip
> 
> That would really make it alot easier to customize and make the
> profiles
> look quite alot more different.. weither that's a good or bad thing
> thou
> :)
> 
> > And we could even use it for more that just <package> stages, to
> group
> > some elements logically (something Felipe was also suggesting).
> 
> Hhrm.  Yes.  I know reasons why someone would want todo this, thou it
> still rubs me the wrong way.  I guess i've always looked at the
> profiles
> on a per-package basis.  Hell i wish it was just all packages with
> more
> configureation elements done inside the package tags, but oh well.
> 

I'm on your side of the fence on that one Jesse, but i guess if groups 
outside packages are that popular then this seems like a nice way of 
doing it.

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