JHALFS-3.0: script partitioning
georgeb at linuxfromscratch.org
Mon Oct 30 12:37:04 PST 2006
> El Lunes, 30 de Octubre de 2006 16:05, George Boudreau escribió:
>> The attached files are patches against the full 6.2 xml tree and the
>> jhalfs lfs.xsl script.
>> I have added partitioning tags for chaps 4..9 and modified the xsl
>> script to manipulate those tags. The xsl should cover all the cases you
>> had coded in your script but I may have missed some tests.. ( NOTE: This
>> is my one and only attempt at xsl so there will be bugs )
>> Again.. this is just an opinion of how script partitioning could work
>> and the xsl is an amateur job.
> As a POC is a good start point.
> For the "role" values, some definitions about when each of them must/can be
> used should be written to help understand editor wy they are needed.
A 'role' specification would be nice. Most of the divisions I chose
were natural breaks. Patches belong in 'role="patch", installs belong in
'role=install' The more difficult divisions occur with 'included' file
generation, ie. setup files, do they belong inside 'role=install' or
role=post'. There are also examples of sed scripts before a patch file,
sed'ing of files after configure and before build. There is even the
ugly dual 'make' zlib.
What is a the 'role' for a script that does not reference a tarball?
(directory creation, adjusting, etc.. 'pre' or 'post' ..
We may have to start a separate discussion for role definition..
> About the XSL, a more in deeper restructuration is needed to allow user to
> write their onw customized templates in a simple way without requiring be an
> XSL wizard.
Shouldn't we stop at the generation of the script files, with all the
role tags included? I do not see how xsl could add any more value to the
scripts. There is enough information in the newly generated scripts
to allow the user to easily mold them to his/her desire.
More information about the alfs-discuss