nALFS CVS status (phase 3)

Reinhard bookreader at gmx.com
Tue Mar 30 22:26:50 PST 2004


last mail reached editors pool, so another try...

On Tuesday 30 March 2004 20:01, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
> Reinhard wrote:
> > - how about to add an entity to the books to identify the type of the
> > book? i.e. booktype=<lfs|blfs|hlfs|...>
>
> The profile name itself should be enough.

and when you want to create that profile-name?

> > - some packages are known to behave badly with active compiler
> > optimizations. How about to add an entity to the packages, which shows
> > whether the package may work with optimizations or not.
>
> I don't really see how these would be useful in the profile itself;

none at all!  Sorry, I didn't meant in the profile, but in the book (i.e. 
chapter 6), so the information is all together.
Having that in the profile or elsewhere is lot of additional work for support.
I think, having such an info in the book, could be less maintenance.

> > So I put a comment around the description and now I get the warnings,
> > that comments are not valid there.
> >
>
> If you can post the portion of your profile containing the comment I can
> look at the profile parsing code to see what's wrong. This is exactly
> what I was hoping for, someone to find all the problems I caused when I
> redid the parsing code... .

:)  You know, I'm stil working on generating profiles, so I toggle a lot 
between nALFS and my script.
Meanwhile I changed to dtd 3.2 - hope the feedback is useful anyway.

May be an attached xml-file is 'suspicious', so here is the fragment:

<package name="Patch" version="&patch-version;">
	<packageinfo>
<!--
		<description>
			<para>The Patch package contains a program for modifying files.
			</para>
		</description>
-->
		<requires><name>Bash</name></requires>
	</packageinfo>
<snip>
</snip>
</package>

Working with nALFS for testing - resulted in some wishes:

- what do you think about an entry in .nALFSrc wich toggles the appending/
resetting of the logfile? When having lots of errors in the logfile, it is 
useful, not to append to the file from last run.
OK, it's useful only for testing ...

- the reloading of a profile does not work

- is it possible, to do something like make does:
        copy a file only if the target does not exists?

- with 3.2 dtd a file is mandatory for remove. What is the right way with that 
syntax to remove a directory (rm -rf dirname) ?



Kind regards

Reinhard




More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list