Syntax, shall we?

flake at flake at
Thu Jan 24 07:56:34 PST 2002

On 2002-01-24, Jesse Tie-Ten-Quee doth wrote:

> > [...]  For that reason, the prtability issue should be across
> > hardware, but not base software systems.  The assumption on base
> > software should be a prior version of lfs, either on a hard disk or from
> > a cd where a lfs system has been burned.
> I was actually talking about syntax portability, but this is also
> something that ALFS implementor's should consider on there own.  If they
> don't, the end result could be that ALFS only runs on LFS systems and
> can't be used from a distro, that would suck ;)  (ok, Linux is %99 the
> same, but you know..)
> Some tags we were using, like <patch>, <link>, <copy> and so forth, you
> could actually supply command line options.  This is totally non
> portable.  What if someone wrote an implementation and all the
> functality of <link> was done with system calls?

Exactly, what if someone some day wants to make a {Free/Open/Net}BSD from scratch or uses one of those as a base system for makeing an LFS



Unsubscribe: send email to listar at
and put 'unsubscribe alfs-discuss' in the subject header of the message

More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list