Managing required packages in nALFS

Mark Ellis mark.uzumati at
Fri Oct 4 04:04:04 PDT 2002

On 2002.10.04 11:08 Vassili Dzuba wrote:
> "Mark Ellis" <mark.uzumati at> a écrit dans le message de
> news:
> 20021004080721.GA770 at
> (snip)
> >
> > Wouldn't it be better to use the presence of a build log for a
> > particular
> > package to determine if it was installed, rather than an arbitrary
> > <stamp>
> > element ? Or better yet, add a status of some kind in the log. Then
> > implement that <packageinfo> idea from a while back containing
> > <depends>,
> > <requires> or whatever.
> >
> The build log exists even if the build of the package failed and the
> package
> had not been installed.
> Adding a status in the log would work but it's a little more
> complicated.
> As the two functions (log vs dependency check) are different, i don't
> see
> any problem with
> having separate log and stamp files. It allows to see the list of
> installed
> packages with a
> simple "ls" (but of course a grep on the log files is not very
> complicated
> either).
> The <check> element is a very minimal way to describe the dependency,
> and we surely could do better.

The idea was really aimed at reducing redundancy of information, and
avoiding introducing too many tags.

Unsubscribe: send email to listar at
and put 'unsubscribe alfs-discuss' in the subject header of the message

More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list