mark.uzumati at virgin.net
Fri Mar 29 07:32:54 PST 2002
On 2002.03.29 14:07 Neven Has wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2002 at 02:20:36PM +0100, Lee Saferite wrote:
> > <stage>
> > <stageinfo>
> Maybe we should use just <info> here? This element will _always_ be
> after <stage>, so it looks a bit unnecessary to use <stageinfo>?
> And also, concatenating two different words like that, without any
> separator, or at least a capital letter is a bit ugly too?
Might be nice, having <info> for our 2 major containers, <stage> and
> > <name/>
> > <base/>
> > <chroot/>
> This <base> is relative to <chroot> (if any), I assume?
> > <user/>
> > <group/>
> I would leave out the <group> here, at least for now. I think it's
> that we go with a simple su-like implementation (again - for now).
Good point, dunno about you but i havent dealt with GIDs much, we could
fla this one as "will be but not yet".
> > <env mode="set|add">
> > <variable name="" value=""/>
> > </env>
> I'll vote for <environment> here. It's a long word, but IMO, much more
> descriptive and nicer.
> Also, I think that we need a default mode for it. Simple setting for
> example? And then mode="add" (or "append" ?) to override the default.
I'd have gone for "add" as the default, but hey :)
> > </stageinfo>
> > ... (any valid action elements, including <package> and <stage>)
> I suppose it would be too much to add another "parent element" here,
> include all these other elements, contained in <stage>.
Might be nice, i could go either way on this.
> > </stage>
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