<remove> DTD proposal

Jamie Bennett jamie_bennett at pcpmicro.co.uk
Thu Jan 29 07:33:20 PST 2004


Kevin P. Fleming wrote on 29 January 2004 15:39:

> Jamie Bennett wrote:
> 
>>   Looking deeper into this I question the need for <base>
>> in <unpack> and <download>. Both of these tags have
>> <destination> which can be used instead of <base> IMO, or
>> am I missing something here?
> 
> I think in this case it would help to make all the
> elements work consistently, i.e. in syntax version 3.2 we
> would remove support for <destination> entirely from
> <download> and <unpack> and let them support <base>
> instead. This allows users to have multiple
> downloads/unpacks in the same stage and not have to
> specify the target path repeatedly in each
> download/unpack element.  
> 
> I know this is a more radical change than the Bugzilla
> entry was asking for, but I think it makes sense.

Ok, just to confirm, we are removing <destination> from both 
<unpack> and <download>? As <download> and <unpack> both do a

	change_current_dir(destination)

IIRC, we cannot have both <base> and <destination> (unless one 
is going to override the other of course).

...
Jamie Bennett	-	jamie at linuxfromscratch dot org
 



More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list