Hi, Am Thursday 19 May 2005 23:04 schrieb Sergio Talens-Oliag: > � Good, then is the proposed syntax enough or do I you think that we need > to include or modify something? I don't plan to use that now, but adding > the Fields on the file parser and documenting it on the cddtool proposal > could be a good idea before it gets lost on the mail archive... ;)
Hmm, ok this is up for discussion by everyone of course, but since you politely asked me, too. Some brain storming. :) Being able to use logical inclusion/exclusions or operators may be nice. The line Tag-Depend: mycdd::desktop-std, mycdd::net-base, mycdd::devel looks as if each packet that is part of the mycdd would have to be taged beforehand. Idealy the definitions could maybe mostly be based on different more common tags like those of some xserver-base, desktop-base, office-apps, special apps etc. Together with AND, OR and NOT some packages could be excluded again or allow alternatives. Like chosing another DE automaticly results in including appripriate DE-extensions of the office-suit for that DE. So actually taging packages as mycdd::config-template for example would only be neseccary to a small extend. Instead of tagging packages to profiles like mycdd::terminal-server-profile one would maintain the definition possibly by adding or substracing from another definition. Now of course all of this may be allready totaly clear for some of you, even already have a notation and be just me being late to realise. OK, what would this mean syntax-wise? A Field to include another definition? A Field to exclude by tags or packages? A field for alternatives? Or allowing AND, OR, NOT, () etc. keywords inline? Regards, Christian
