cvs commit: ALFS syntax.txt
Seth W. Klein
sk at sethwklein.net
Sat Mar 30 07:43:17 PST 2002
Lee Saferite <dsaferite at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 19:12:03 -0500
> "Seth W. Klein" <sk at sethwklein.net> wrote:
> > Lee Saferite <dsaferite at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 22:42:29 +0000
> > > Mark Ellis <mark.uzumati at virgin.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I notice you left <command> out of <make> and <configure>. I agree
> > > > that adding a different command to these turns them into <execute>
> > > > in disguise, it might just be more self documenting to have this
> > > > capability in the profile.
> > >
> > > I figure, if you need to do a <command>, then you should use the
> > > <execute> or find another way to do it. if you have a strong enough
> > > set of core elements, you don't need that kind of fluff. Sorry if I
> > > make anyone angry. ;)
> > I really like <command> in <configure>. It would irk me highly to have
> > to use <execute> instead of <configure> just because a package uses a
> > separate build directory as gcc, glibc, binutils, and e2fsprogs do.
> Well, It seems to me that when you leave <command> you turn it into a
> glorified version of <execute> that has a DEFAULT command. Really, it
> does the EXACT same thing then, just with a spiffy new name. Why should
> we have a tag called<configure> that does the configure command AND the
> execute command?
For consistency between packages and because it's misleading to use
<execute> to run ./configure. If using execute is necessary, one looks
at a package like gcc and thinks, "This is weird, why doesn't it have
a configure command?"
> If some packages required building from a different
> directory, then add an element that let's you specify that. Maybe
> <builddir> or something. I'm not good with names, but you get the idea?
> It's like the <prebuild><build> <postbuild> thing, why have all of it if
> you can use one element that does it better?
A child element to specify which directory to find ./configure is
sensible, but it doesn't handle things like perl and so falls to your
argument, "why have all of it if you can use one element that does it
On the other hand, one could claim that perl's configure script isn't
a "real" configure script and so should be run from <execute>, but i
think that's wrong unless you rename <configure> to <gnuconfigure> :)
Seth W. Klein
sk at sethwklein.net http://www.sethwklein.net/
Maintainer, LFS FAQ http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Life on the edge? You're taking too much space
if you're not living hanging from your safty harness rope.
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