On Wed, 11 Jul 2001, David Douthitt wrote:
> For me, I almost hesitated to put that in - but the way I build packages
> (main binary in bin.lrp, needed dynamic libraries in libX.lrp) adding
> requirements is a big win.
>
> However, these are my goals:
> 1. Simplicity
> 2. Simplicity
> 3. Simplicity :-)
The extra package elements you are describing here might make a flexible
way to implement a configuration template for text based and web based
configuration.
Eg: <pkg>.web or <pkg>.setup-template
They might be the same file, where the form, limits and question
information is used equally by text, gui or web frontends.
The format would contain enough logic to check paramters and so on.
The root.web file might even contain halt and reboot commands for example,
and the ppp.web might hame a menu to bring up the link and check
statistics, as well as configure the connection.
I am thinking of the type of display Freesco uses for its web frontend,
but with and extensible backend to suit modules and packages and lrp.
Packages that have the .web (or whatever) would be instantly configurable
by the tool. Packages that do not have it are ignored, and a .web file can
be added to a package at a later date.
The .web file would be ignored by releases that do not have the, lets say,
omniconfig.lrp package.
Dale.
_______________________________________________
Leaf-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
