how will 'package-management' be implemented?

Joachim Beckers joachim.beckersNOSPAM at
Mon Apr 12 11:33:12 PDT 2004

DJ Lucas wrote:
> Joachim Beckers wrote:
>> (snip)
 >> nALFS still lacks some functionality that makes it
>> difficult to use it for any other purpose than building an LFS-system. 
 > difficult yes...without everyone sharing profiles.
You're right, this is a bit a problem we have.
There should definately be some public place where people can put their own 
profiles. To keep it in LFS-land, I would propose that a newsgroup 
(alfs.profiles) were set up.

>> - even if there was an official profile, it still would be hard to 
>> build a custom BLFS-system, because not everyone would want to install 
>> the same packages
> I've currently broke mine up into 13 "stages" you can simply pick and 
> choose through the stages....I'm still working on it ATM, but up through 
> all the gnome deps in genlibs works well (stages 1-6).  For instance, I 
> run stages 1-4 and stage 7 +stage 9 if I want a pretty good KDE.  All I 
> do is just comment out the stages I don't want in BLFS.xml and 
> system.ent (this is based off of the current LFS-CVS profile).  So nALFS 
> is perfectly capable of building BLFS so long as you take the time to 
> set up your profiles correctly.
It nice that you've accomplished to build a BLFS system using your profile, but 
the profile you use can IMHO never become the standard profile because it 
doesn't follow the BLFS book.

The point I want to make clear is that one just can't make a profile that really 
follows BLFS, because BLFS doesn't just consist of a range of commands that are 
to be executed in a certain order. One can choose to build a package from 
chapter 22 first, then one from chapter 14 and then one from chapter 45. 
Currently there's no really neat way to adress this in ALFS.


-- Please remove the NOSPAM in my e-mail adress to reply.         --
-- Verwijder aub de NOSPAM in mijn e-mail adres om te antwoorden. --

More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list