Sorry for my late reply, I have been gone to the Linuxworld expo and am just catching up answering my mails. On Wed, 2004-10-06 at 23:05, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote: > > > The basic idea is the following. > > > Currently there are two "types" of variables set by dpkg-cross - some > > > are from configuration file, others are hardcoded. I see no rationale > > > for having this difference - it only makes it harder to understand how > > > things work. you are right there. It also makes the code harder to understand. And I know because I have been digging into it... > > > I'd like to see all variables set from the configuration file. Default > > > configuration file should contain basic setup for cross-compilation > > > (i.e. what's currently (mostly) hardcoded), and then have > > > per-(package,mode,arch) parts that set up more particular things The arch part would be something great. Because this is something the current -Still in development- Emdebian tools lack. And they are based on dpkg-cross, so hopefully if we both manage to do a good job it will be used quite intensively. > > > (probably changing or undefining some "general" settings). To make > > > such configuration more readable, it should not completely be located > > > in one file, instead "include" and "includeif" statements (ala > > > fontconfig's configuration) should be supported, or even > > > "configuration directory" concept. User configuration file should not > > > be used instead of global, but "includeif"ed at the bottom of global > > > configuration. > > > The syntax may be the same as now, with addition of fourth dimension > > > "arch" (first three are "mode", "package" and "scope"), include > > > statements and undefine statement. Please do also document it decently or make a nice example in the config... > > > If that will be implemented, it's a large enough change to call it > > > dpkg-cross 2.0 :). > > > > I spend some thoungs on the new flexible configuration scheme. My > > fontconfig version uses XML as configuration language. I'm familiar > > with XML (Python, C++) and would like to propose to use Perl as > > configuration languages instead of writting a new parser How do you mean. Configuring everything by running perl statements or editing a perl script? regards, Philippe -- | Philippe De Swert | | Stag developer http://stag.mind.be/ | Emdebian developer: http://www.emdebian.org | | Please do not send me documents in a closed format. (*.doc,*.xls,*.ppt) | Use the open alternatives. (*.pdf,*.ps,*.html,*.txt) | Why? http://pallieter.is-a-geek.org:7832/~johan/word/english/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part