nomis80 at videotron.ca
Wed Feb 14 17:07:14 PST 2001
On Wednesday 14 February 2001 14:56, Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> > I guess it's safe to hardcode "/usr/src" ?
> hardcoding isn't a nice solution.
I second that. Quoted from the alfs website:
"To make a long list of possibilities short: you will have the same fine
graned control over ALFS as you do when using LFS, but with the difference
that ALFS can do everything or parts of the process automatically for you."
That makes me ask another question, which I will discuss below.
> The FHS does not dicate the kernel sitting in /usr/src *I think* but I have
> to look that up to make sure. If the FHS recommends it, then hardcoding it
> is an idea, but still not nice and flexible.
Hardcoding it is NOT an idea, except if the answer to the question I
mentioned above says it's ok. Here is the question:
Is the profile absolute, meaning that when you fire up alfs it will do
exactly what the profile says, so that you cannot modify anything without
modifying the profile? I think it's pretty clear that the <!ENTITY> thingies
can be modified by the user, but what about everything else?
What I see is some kind of tree, listing the packages and their sub-sections
and then the tags in the sections, so that you can expand/contract it and
edit values, like... oh, no, like the MS registry. Well, I think it would
work great, and then you would be able to edit everything without changing
the profile. So you would just expand the linux item, change the appropriate
values, and click on the compile button.
So in this case, NOTHING must be hardcoded, especially in the profile. But if
we can't have control like that while running the front-end, then hardcoding
in the profile is ok.
Only my newbie advice though.
Simon Perreault -- Public key: http://nomis80.dyn.dhs.org/nomis80.gpg
I know Linux. I need a job. Do I fit your needs? Email me!
More information about the alfs-discuss