[Bug 667] New: <patch> element support for download and uncompression

Kevin P. Fleming kpfleming at linuxfromscratch.org
Wed Sep 24 12:13:58 PDT 2003

Neven Has wrote:

>>The other option is to do as James suggested and just have one set of 
>>source for each handler, and let the handler itself check the version 
>>and act appropriately. I'm beginning to think that's a better option.
> Yeah, it solves the naming problem completely and hides the versioning
> mess from the average user.  And with the use of macros, we can still
> exclude the parts of the handler.

That's definitely the direction I'll be going as I rework the build system. 
However, that means that once the new build system is ready (which will take at 
least a week), then the CVS nALFS may be unusable until all the handlers get 
converted to this new style.

In fact, I would say that before any of the new build stuff goes in, the CVS 
should be branched (although the LFS CVS guru may have to chime in here), 
because it won't be possible to backport bugfixes that were made in 1.2.x into 
1.1.x once the handlers have been converted.

More information about the alfs-log mailing list