headers
Kevin P. Fleming | 1 Feb 2004 01:04
Picon
Favicon

Re: Bug #605 -- Conditional execution

Gerard Beekmans wrote:

> So, my question to you guys is: what will it take to get this feature
> implemented? I can justify spending work hours on this, to a certain
> degree, so I'm perfectly willing to help out implementing it. However,
> my coding skills aren't up to snuff with what you'd expect to see
> quality wise, so I'm not sure I could pull it off properly.

OK, I have begun working on this, I'm about 30% of the way there. I have 
some issues for the group, though:

- was <if>/<then>/<else> support added in DTD 3.1 or 3.0? I am adding it 
to nALFS and allowing it be used to match the 3.1 DTD (even though James 
as already removed it from the 3.1 syntax document), but I need to know 
if it was in the 3.0 DTD as well.

- I'm not keen on the <if> syntax at all... it seems cumbersome and will 
be hard to extend in the future. For DTD 3.2, I'd like to propose the 
following:

<if>
   <test>0/1/true/false/yes/no</test>
   <and>
     <or>
       <test>"shell test function expression"</test>
       <package-built>package-name</package-built>
     </or>
     <package-version condition="eq">3.1.2</package-version>
   </and>
   <then>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Kevin P. Fleming | 1 Feb 2004 01:10
Picon
Favicon

Pending nALFS changes

The changes I'm making to support conditional execution are touching all 
the handler source files, as the handler_info structure has changed a 
little. Jamie, if I commit my changes before you do then you will need 
to do a "cvs update" before your commit, so you can handle any merge 
conflicts (they will be minor).

--

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/alfs-discuss
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Dasn | 1 Feb 2004 01:25

Re: a revision of profile README

On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 03:04:50AM -0500, manchot wrote:
> hi, 
> 
> I ventured to revise the profile README file into the following content
> in the hope that it is approachable for newbies (including myself). The
> reason I do this is that I feel the original README is a bit hazy in the
> part of the configuration file and I wasted lot of time trying to grap
> separate packages while I already have the tarball. 
> 
I think that the README file in the root of nALFS source tree should be
revised. The following section I quoted from that file:

[quote]

2. Quick start
==============

To configure, compile, install and run nALFS, just type:

./configure
make
make install
nALFS profile/LFS-*/LFS-*.xml

This will start nALFS using the latest stable LFS profile, which is included
in the nALFS distribution. When you enter the program, type '?' for a list of
all available commands.

[quote]
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Alex Potter | 1 Feb 2004 05:58
Picon

Re: Bug #605 -- Conditional execution

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 17:04:22 -0700, Kevin P. Fleming thusly spake in
<401C4286.1010309 <at> linuxfromscratch.org>:

> Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> 
>> So, my question to you guys is: what will it take to get this feature
>> implemented? I can justify spending work hours on this, to a certain
>> degree, so I'm perfectly willing to help out implementing it. However,
>> my coding skills aren't up to snuff with what you'd expect to see
>> quality wise, so I'm not sure I could pull it off properly.
> 
> OK, I have begun working on this, I'm about 30% of the way there. I have 
> some issues for the group, though:
> 
> - was <if>/<then>/<else> support added in DTD 3.1 or 3.0? I am adding it 
> to nALFS and allowing it be used to match the 3.1 DTD (even though James 
> as already removed it from the 3.1 syntax document), but I need to know 
> if it was in the 3.0 DTD as well.
> 
> - I'm not keen on the <if> syntax at all... it seems cumbersome and will 
> be hard to extend in the future. For DTD 3.2, I'd like to propose the 
> following:
> 
> <if>
>    <test>0/1/true/false/yes/no</test>
>    <and>
>      <or>
>        <test>"shell test function expression"</test>
>        <package-built>package-name</package-built>
>      </or>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Kevin P. Fleming | 1 Feb 2004 16:03
Picon
Favicon

Re: Bug #605 -- Conditional execution

Alex Potter wrote:

> Do you mean something like
> if <test> then
> 	pass_action
> else
> 	fail_action
> endif
> 
> where <test> =[ [not]"shell test function expression" ]
>        [[&& or || [not]]<package-built>package-name</package-built>]
>        [[&& or || [not] ] <package-version condition="[eq | ge |le]">
> 		3.1.2</package-version>]

I hadn't considered adding <not>, but that would make sense, yes.

> 
> and actions may include further if statements or any legal code for the
> element that encloses the outermost if.

Yes, <then>/<else> are exactly the same as <stage> (in fact they are in 
the same source file so they can share common code), except that they 
are only invoked when the test result warrants.

> I think your "implicit AND" may well prove to be a PITA.....

Possibly, although even in the worst case someone could use:

<if>
   <or>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Alex Potter | 1 Feb 2004 16:42
Picon

Re: Bug #605 -- Conditional execution

On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 08:03:14 -0700, Kevin P. Fleming thusly spake in
<401D1532.3050708 <at> linuxfromscratch.org>:
> 
>> where <test> =[ [not]"shell test function expression" ]
>>        [[&& or || [not]]<package-built>package-name</package-built>]
>>        [[&& or || [not] ] <package-version condition="[eq | ge |le]">
>> 		3.1.2</package-version>]
> 
> I hadn't considered adding <not>, but that would make sense, yes.

Please :)
> 
> Yes, <then>/<else> are exactly the same as <stage> (in fact they are in 
> the same source file so they can share common code), except that they 
> are only invoked when the test result warrants.
> 
>> I think your "implicit AND" may well prove to be a PITA.....
> 
> Possibly, although even in the worst case someone could use:
> 
> <if>
>    <or>
>      <test>...</test>
>      <test>...</test>
>    </or>
>    <then>
>       ...
>    </then>
> </if>
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Joachim Beckers | 1 Feb 2004 20:39

Re: a revision of profile README

Dasn wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 03:04:50AM -0500, manchot wrote:
<snip...>
> 2. Quick start
> ==============
> 
> To configure, compile, install and run nALFS, just type:
> 
> ./configure
> make
> make install
shouldn't this be put in a file named INSTALL?
that's the may most people in gnu-circles do it

you could also add files like AUTHORS, TODO, etc

regards

joachim beckers
-- 

-----------------------------------------------------------
Please remove NOSPAM in my e-mail adress to reply.
-----------------------------------------------------------

--

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/alfs-discuss
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Joachim Beckers | 1 Feb 2004 21:18

runit script

hi,

currently, the recommanded way to run nALFS, is by running the runit script that 
is in the profile's directory

to me, this seems to be a good way for a lot of reasons, like:
- it's simple
- it eliminates typos by users (like trying to run nalfs instead of nALFS)
- it enables logging by default
- etc

however, i think this script should be renamed, the reason for that being that 
there's already another program that's called runit (see http://smarden.org/runit/)

when someone has runit installed, it might be confusing that the script to run 
nALFS has the same name

what do you guys think? should this script be renamed?
what name should it get then?

regards

joachim beckers
-- 

-----------------------------------------------------------
Please remove NOSPAM in my e-mail adress to reply.
-----------------------------------------------------------

--

--
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Jamie Bennett | 1 Feb 2004 20:47
Picon
Favicon

Re: runit script

Joachim Beckers wrote:

> however, i think this script should be renamed, the reason for that 
> being that there's already another program that's called runit (see 
> http://smarden.org/runit/)
>
> when someone has runit installed, it might be confusing that the 
> script to run nALFS has the same name
>
> what do you guys think? should this script be renamed?
> what name should it get then?

For each name you think up you could probably find another program
called that. This is why we recommend executing runit with

  sh ./runit

notice the ./ current working directory.

> regards
>
> joachim beckers

...
Jamie Bennett      -       jamie (AT) linufromscratch (DOT) org

--

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/alfs-discuss
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Jamie Bennett | 1 Feb 2004 20:56
Picon
Favicon

Re: a revision of profile README

Joachim Beckers wrote:

> Dasn wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 03:04:50AM -0500, manchot wrote:
>
> <snip...>
>
>> 2. Quick start
>> ==============
>>
>> To configure, compile, install and run nALFS, just type:
>>
>> ./configure
>> make
>> make install
>
> shouldn't this be put in a file named INSTALL?
> that's the may most people in gnu-circles do it

Possibly, but I'd like to see it remain in the README for
completeness.

> you could also add files like AUTHORS, TODO, etc

Like the idea of an AUTHORS but with nALFS being such
a moving target at the moment a TODO would quickly be
out of date.

> regards
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane