How well does it work?

Timothy Bauscher timothy at
Fri Dec 20 05:35:06 PST 2002

On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 01:03:26PM +0100, Karl Eggert wrote:
> nALFS is working very well. I haven't tried the other two (simply got
> no time :)  but this simply works.

halfing is very nice; you should give it a shot when you have
the time :)

> There is one thing I've been wondering about for quite a while now.
> Why are there 3 parsers that are IMHO doing the same thing?

The more the merrier, IMO. Each one has its own advantages
and disadvantages.

> Looking at
> the ALFS website gives me the impression that ALFS seems a bit dusted
> (which obviously isn't true ;)
> Another thing: What are the guys working on LFS use? ALFS or do they
> have their own set of scripts?

The LFS book editors make their test builds manually. When
not testing, they've been known to use halfling, nALFS,
and their own scripts. But, mostly, they build manually.

> Since I'm only building the cvs-version
> of LFS I thought a cvs-profile coming along with it would be nice so
> the user doesn't have to adapt the profile for himself.

Once you've built a CVS profile, keeping it up-to-date is not
very time consuming. You can monitor the changes to the book
by subscribing to lfs-book.


-*- "Share and Enjoy" || "Go stick your head in a pig" -*-
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at
and put 'unsubscribe alfs-discuss' in the subject header of the message

More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list