Brainstorm: <package>

Mark Ellis mark.uzumati at virgin.net
Fri Mar 29 07:33:00 PST 2002


On 2002.03.29 14:07 Neven Has wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2002 at 02:24:13PM +0100, Lee Saferite wrote:
> > <package>
> >    <packageinfo>
> 
> For the same resons as for <stageinfo> - I think <info> is enough.
> 

I agree.

> >       <name/>
> >       <version/>
> >       <base/>
> >       <depends>
> >          ...  (still deciding what I would suggest here)
> >       </depends>
> 
> Or <dependencies>?
> 
> >       <conflicts>
> >          ... (ditto)
> >       </conflicts>
> 
> What exactly <conflicts> are for? I can see a few uses, but what did
> you
> mean?
> 

I think this is probably more appropriate to regular distros than us. 
They tend to have conflict info 'cos they do things like enable daemons 
in the install, so you cant have two MTAs 'cos they can't both grab the 
mail port. If i'm going off in the wrong direction someone jump in. So 
i guess it depends how far we intend to go, if all we're automating is 
the build and basic config then we might not need this, although it may 
come in useful. If alternatively we want profiles that go as far as 
starting system services then we'll definitely need it.

> >    </packageinfo>
> >    ... (any valid action elements, including <package> and <stage>)
> 
> If we are to remove <*build> elements, same comment as for <stage>
> goes here - naked elements ;).
> 

Same goes, might be nice, can't decide.

> > </package>
> 

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