Brainstorm: <package>

Neven Has haski at sezampro.yu
Sun Mar 31 02:51:25 PST 2002

On Sat, Mar 30, 2002 at 03:49:39PM +0100, Lee Saferite wrote:
> > If we are to remove <*build> elements, same comment as for <stage>
> > goes here - naked elements ;).
> I'm not sure, do you like or not like 'naked' elements?  I would say
> that the only elements you should allow under <alfs> are <stage> and
> <package>.  But under <stage> and <package> you would REQUIRED and info
> section and then all the rest would just be action elements and such. 
> No need really for a container element.  I know this is not contradicts
> what I said in a previous email, but I don't care if we have a <body>
> element or not.  I just don't think we need it.

Generally, I don't like those "naked" elements, it feels weird when they
are on the same level as other package (or stage) info.

But I guess it's not that big deal here, after grouping all info into
a single element.

It _would_ be ugly with the current package, if we are to only remove
<*build> elements, when the both <name> and <version> would be mixed
with the other elements.


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