[RFC] BLFS Profile: Dependencies not included in the BLFS Book

Alex Potter spambin at ap-consulting.co.uk
Tue Mar 8 13:50:28 PST 2005

Joachim Beckers wrote in <d0ktil$t25$1 at belgarath.linuxfromscratch.org>

> Kevin P. Fleming wrote:

>> The requires and utilizes elements also support 'version' attributes,
>> IIRC. That would make this harder to do.
> Correct. I hadn't thought about that, but now I see that there's no
> way to overcome this problem (unless allowing 'version' attributes
> within
> {name} tags, but that sounds illogical).

Forgive me if I've misunderstood something here, but if the definition
of 'utilizes' was changed to require one or more 'program' attributes,
which in turn required exactly one 'name' and zero or one 'version'
attributes, the problem becomes fairly trivial? 

Incidentally, if we then had effective logging and log parsing, the
dependancy problem would also unravel, as we could (I assume with very
little work, following the sterling work Kevin did on decomposing the
monolith into discrete handlers) branch to the relevant profile
fragment (recursively!) and then return.....
The email address above is a spamtrap.
alex@ the same domain will reach me

More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list