Goals of ALFS

Bruce Dubbs bdubbs at swbell.net
Thu Jan 24 10:54:59 PST 2002


Jesse Tie-Ten-Quee wrote:

> Yo,
> 
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 09:17:11AM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> 
>>I've been following this list a while and thought I'd jump in.  In my 
>>opinion, alfs is something that should not be done before doing lfs and 
>>some of blfs.  For that reason, the prtability issue should be across 
>>hardware, but not base software systems.  The assumption on base 
>>software should be a prior version of lfs, either on a hard disk or from 
>>a cd where a lfs system has been burned.
>>
> 
> I was actually talking about syntax portability, but this is also
> something that ALFS implementor's should consider on there own.  If they
> don't, the end result could be that ALFS only runs on LFS systems and
> can't be used from a distro, that would suck ;)  (ok, Linux is %99 the
> same, but you know..)


I guess I don't get it.  Why would it suck?  If the system is set up to 
load from almost anything, where is the advantage of using alfs?  It 
would just be easier to get a commercial distro such as Redhat or SuSe 
and load that.  If someone wanted a bare lfs system quickly, a binary 
version could be built and made available quite easily.  You would never 
have to go through the static phase--or any of the compile stages for 
that matter.

Perhaps if I understood the goals of alfs better, it would help.

  -- Bruce


-- 
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