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

Joachim Beckers jbeckers at linuxfromscratch.org
Fri Mar 11 10:58:41 PST 2005

Alex Potter wrote:
> Joachim Beckers wrote:
>>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? 

If you mean something like:
then indeed all the info is there and the problem is solved.

Even better it would be to replace {program} with {package}, but I don't 
know wether the current dtd allows for {package} to be used in this 
context, so we might need to invent a new tag. I'll check this out.


More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list