dsaferite at yahoo.co.uk
Thu Mar 21 13:26:15 PST 2002
On Thu, 21 Mar 2002 13:26:16 -0500
"Seth W. Klein" <sk at sethwklein.net> wrote:
> Mark Ellis <mark.uzumati at virgin.net> wrote:
> Stages would have to nest and attribute values would have to be
That is what I had in mind and seems to make the most sense.
> Can this replace package then? I think it can. It would add a grouping
> element for packages, too. (I forget what that was called last time
> someone suggested it.)
I would think keeping <package> would be a good thing. It is a logical element for grouping. Then you could use <stage> inside it to subdivide it any way you wanted. That way, you could have an <info> entity with some required info on the package ie. <name>, <version>, <defaultbase>, possibly some sort of depenancy info. Then the rest would be all stages or just naked elements (correct term?)
<maintainer>some guy someguy at somewhere.com</maintainer>
<stage name="Prebuild" user="lfs" chroot="&LFS>
(do some stuff here, but I'm too lazy to come up with something)
As for the env seperator problem, I have very limited xml savoir-faire, but I would ask, can you have nested quotes in an attribute?
An uglier option could be to have some sort of <info> element (maybe a differnet name) inside the stage element. You could then have a series of elements that set all the needed options. Actually, I think that sounds bad, and ugly...
<env mode="append">"you=me" "he=she"</env>
Actually, having written the above, I think that looks nicer that my first suggestion. You could make the stageinfo element a sigle instance only and required. inside the stageinfo element you would have a required <name> element but the rest could be optional but unique (only one instance).
As always, Comments/Flames welcome.
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