Adding to "Cleaning Up'

Bruce Dubbs bruce.dubbs at gmail.com
Sat Jan 11 09:13:45 PST 2014


Pierre Labastie wrote:
> Le 11/01/2014 04:18, Bruce Dubbs a écrit :
>> Pierre Labastie wrote:
>>> Le 10/01/2014 00:08, Bruce Dubbs a écrit :
>>>> Pierre,
>>>>
>>>>      In LFS, I want to add an instruction to chapter06/revisedchroot.xml
>>>> which is actually titled "Cleaning Up".  When I tested jhalfs,
>>>> 129-revisedchroot is not run in the Makefile, but
>>>> lfs-commands/chapter06/129-revisedchroot is created.
>>>>
>>>> The revised 'chroot' command should not be run but the new 'rm' command
>>>> should be.  I'd like to see a role="noauto" (or equivalent) for
>>>> <userinput> to skip the chroot command, but also run 129-revisedchroot
>>>> in the Makefile.
>>>>
>>>> Would that be hard to do?
>>>>
>>>>      -- Bruce
>>>>
>>> I think I could try to do that during the week-end. The easy part is to run
>>> the script in the Makefile. The harder part is to split the script, because
>>> the chroot instruction is needed too (variable CHROOT2 in the Makefile), but
>>> of course should not be run when the script is run. So I think I'll split the
>>> script into 129-1-revisedchroot and 129-2-revisedchroot, use the -1 for
>>> extracting the chroot command and run the -2 in the Makefile. For
>>> discriminating the two strings, I do not think a special role="" attribute is
>>> needed, but I need to be sure that the new command to be run does not contain
>>> "chroot". Is that the case?
>>
>> Yes, that's the case, but it may be useful to have a general way to add
>> an instruction but not have jhalfs include it.  That's what I had in
>> mind with the role attribute.  Another thought is something like
>> role='comment' and have the instruction(s) in that code chunk preceded
>> with a #.
>>
>>     -- Bruce
>>
> Why not use "role='nodump'"? It is enough for jhalfs.

OK, I forgot about that.  Now we only need to get the section in the 
Makefile.

   -- Bruce




More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list