Syntax, shall we?

Rob Landley landley at
Mon Mar 4 12:51:49 PST 2002

On Monday 04 March 2002 05:04 am, Jesse Tie-Ten-Quee wrote:
> Yo,
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 11:36:17AM +0100, Neven Has wrote:
> > But that's just me, and since it would be useful anyway...
> I've been thinking the same way.  However i wanted to make sure everyone
> had to shot to voice there opinion.  From the sounds of it, most of us
> that are seriously interested in using ALFS don't consider it a viable
> addition, thou i'll leave the issue for a bit in case anyone else wants
> to pipe in.

What self-containability are we talking about here?  There is a package being 
installed, and there's a location it's being installed at.  This information 
logically belongs on the package level.

Saying the install section shouldn't have to know anything about the package 
being installed is silly.  It's a nested scope, you inherit information from 
your parent scope.  Are you saying the configure section is logically 
independent and thus shouldn't leave any information behind that the install 
section then uses?  It does so, on the filesystem.  That's 100% what the 
configure section exists for, isn't it?

I fail to see the point of the objection.  It looks entirely artificial to 
me, an artifact of abstracting yourself too far away from the problem being 
solved.  What did I miss...?

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