Preparing for nALFS 1.3 release

James Robertson jwrober at
Sat Feb 7 19:07:49 PST 2004

Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
>> I'd like to see bug #604 (LSB stuff) either removed or have its priority
>> changed.
> I have just looked over the LSB's CVS repository, and I don't see many 
> changes there at all. The only significant ones revolve around the 
> <cond> element, for which we now have a much better implementation with 
> the new <if> element. Their <cond> element supports a "switch" like 
> syntax for testing the architecture of the system nALFS was compiled on 
> (not what it is running on or building for), which could be emulated 
> with multiple <if> elements quite well. If someone out there _really_ 
> wants to have this switch-type logic available, then we'd need to 
> discuss just adding <switch> and <case> elements to do it the right way.
> If noone in the current user base really cares about this one, I think 
> it can just be resolved as "no longer relevant".

I personally think that if we go ahead and put <switch> and <case> 
elements in the DTD, we can come up with all sorts of ways to make use 
of it.  This is an excellent piece of conditional operation that I would 
like to see.  I'll bet Gerard could make use of it as well.


James Robertson -- jwrober at linuxfromscratch dot org
Reg. Linux User -- #160424 --
Reg. LFS User   -- #6981   --
LFS Bugzilla Maintainer    -- http://{blfs-}

More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list