Conrad's ALFS comments

Bill Maltby LFS Related lfsbill at wlmcs.com
Mon Aug 26 04:41:53 PDT 2002


I reply here *only* to offer alternate considerations to the comments.
None of my comments are meant to say either way is right or wrong - just
different styles.

On Mon, 26 Aug 2002, Rui Ferreira wrote:

> Hi all,
> Hi Conrad.
> 
> You posted your script as an answer to my call of making an unified bash 
> script for building an lfs system.
> Well, yours is pretty close, if not exactly.
> So, I'm going to tell you what I would change:
> . Put the functions on another file to help readability;

Having the functions in the same file, collected at the top of the file,
allows viewing more conveniently if using a single screen. Marks can be
set at many places and "jumped to".

> . The function names are very easy to read but too long. Instead of
> make_lfs_command_chroot, why not just mkcommchr;

Good programming style suggests that names be longer, not shorter, so that
each name is self-explanatory. This eases learning for people new to the
scripts. Shorter names are preferred by folks like me, K & R traditional-
ists, who like to type less and are performance oriented on slower eqpt.

> . Using lfs-commands from the site might not be an good idea because future 
> versions might reveal incompabilitys and you'll have to deal with them by 
> changing the functions;

OTOH, if your goal is to remain current and you expect to keep the scripts
compatible with what is on the site, this is a nice convenience. You don't
have to manually inspect for differences and get the stuff yourself.

> . Entering chroot to execute each package build saves you from having more 
> than one script, but it isn't elegant(?!?). I came up with something else. 
> <snip>

Elegance is to be admired, but not *necessarily* pursued. *Sometimes* it
is a trade-off between increased complexity (and, therefore, higher
maintenance or execution costs) to achieve elegance, and simplification
for the purposes of easier maintenance, faster execution, better
educational value or other such considerations.

> Well, these are just some.
> And your script isn't stupid. It does far more checkings than...me!
> 
> Care to comment?
> 
> Greetings
> Rui Ferreira

Bill Maltby
billm at wlmcs.com

-- 
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe alfs-discuss' in the subject header of the message



More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list