Conrad's ALFS comments
ruifmferreira at hotmail.com
Mon Aug 26 09:47:16 PDT 2002
>From: Bill Maltby LFS Related <lfsbill at wlmcs.com>
>Subject: Re: Conrad's ALFS comments
>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
>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".
This one as to do with the functions names I proposed. Something to make the
main script look more like the LFS book's table of contents.
> > . 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
Didn't knew that. All I've learned was by my self.
>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-
So, what's K & R? Kernnighan & Ritchie?
>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
> > versions might reveal incompabilitys and you'll have to deal with them
> > 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.
Yes you have if you're using 3.3 script to build cvs. Anything might appear.
> > . Entering chroot to execute each package build saves you from having
> > than one script, but it isn't elegant(?!?). I came up with something
> > <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.
So, what's your oppinion? Several chroot's, one stage arg. or any other
> > Well, these are just some.
> > And your script isn't stupid. It does far more checkings than...me!
> > Care to comment?
> > Greetings
> > Rui Ferreira
>billm at wlmcs.com
>Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
>and put 'unsubscribe alfs-discuss' in the subject header of the message
MSN Photos é a maneira mais fácil e prática de editar e compartilhar sua
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