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

Joachim Beckers jbeckers at linuxfromscratch.org
Sat Mar 12 01:31:36 PST 2005


Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
> Joachim Beckers wrote:
> 
>> If you mean something like:
>> {packageinfo}
>>   {requires}
>>     {program}
>>       {name}foo{/name}
>>       {version}1.5.4{/version}
>>     {/program}
>>   {/requires}
>>   ...
>> {/packageinfo}
>> then indeed all the info is there and the problem is solved.
> 
> 
> I don't understand how this is better...is there ever going to be 
> anything other than {package} inside {requires}? If not, this is just an 
> extra layer that keeps you from repeating {requires}, but makes you 
> repeat {package} instead.

True, but it might still be better to write:

{packageinfo}
   {requires}
     {package}
       {name}foo{/name}
       {version}1.5.4{/version}
     {/package}
     {package}
       {name}bar{/name}
       {version}5.3.10{/version}
     {/package}
   {/requires}
   {utilizes}
     {package}
       {name}slash{/name}
       {version}2.4.0{/version}
     {/package}
     {package}
       {name}dot{/name}
       {version}0.0.4{/version}
     {/package}
   {/requires}
{/packageinfo}

than to write:

{packageinfo}
   {requires}
     {name}foo{/name}
     {version}1.5.4{/version}
   {/requires}
   {requires}
     {name}bar{/name}
     {version}5.3.10{/version}
   {/requires}
   {utilizes}
     {name}slash{/name}
     {version}2.4.0{/version}
   {/utilizes}
   {utilizes}
     {name}dot{/name}
     {version}0.0.4{/version}
   {/utilizes}
{/packageinfo}

because a {package} doesn't depend on a {name} (like in the second 
example), but on a {package} that has a {name} (like in the first 
example). also, the first example separates requirements from optional 
packages, which might come out handy when doing dependency-resolution.

i think this would definately be a better way to handle things than the 
one we have now, but of course i'm open to suggestions...

Joachim



More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list