El Viernes, 27 de Octubre de 2006 03:13, George Boudreau escribió: > Hi, > Lately there has been rumblings about 'plugins' and flexiblity and > there is more than a little interest in those features. For Manuel and I > to include those features in 2.0 would create more problems than > features and would end up looking like a M$ product.
I would to spoke about the whole desing picture. I thiink that a plugins modularized system meant that there is a core code to perfom the basics functions, in or case to build by-the-book systems. Then, that basics funcionalities could be enchanced via external plufgins, but that external plugins don't should need do modifications on the core code. With that in mind, the REPORT, COMPARE, OPTIMIZE, BLFS_TOOL, CUSTOM_TOOLS, and REBUILD_MAKEFILE features should be handled via plugins, and looks that any of them requires changes on the XML book sources or the XSL code. Thus, IMHO we should try to start developing the new core code and port that features as plugings to can know if that new desing can be implemented before asking for changes in the book sources. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.info TLDP-ES: http://es.tldp.org -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/alfs-discuss FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
