What about nALFS 1.3 and syntax 3.2???
thomasp at linuxfromscratch.org
Sun Aug 22 18:08:08 PDT 2004
On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 18:13, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
> Thomas Pegg wrote:
> > With all this talk of nALFS 2, I was wondering what is the status is on
> > these, the BLFS profile really needs these available before it can
> > really be released.
> Sorry for the delay in responding, I've been trying to figure out my
> plan of attack for this issue.
> As it stands right now, it appears that in about 10 days or so I'll be
> able to start applying some effort to nALFS 1.x again. Given the current
> condition of SVN trunk, and how long it's been since I've worked on
> it, I believe I'm actually going to push the existing trunk aside
> (rename it), copy the 1.2 branch over to a new trunk, and start merging
> in the old trunk functionality one piece at a time.
> Most likely this will mean that 1.3 will end up being released without
> any major new logging functionality, but with support for syntax 3.2 and
> conditional execution. The new logging functionality is just too much to
> build on top of the current system, especially in light of the direction
> nALFS development is going to go after that.
Well ok, conditional execution is mostly what is needed (plus syntax
3.2), the logging system would have been nice, it would have improved
dependency resolution quite a bit (correct me if I'm wrong here), since
the BLFS profile depends somewhat heavily on it. Although the current
dependency set-up in nALFS isn't horrible but it isn't great either.
Most notably I don't think it knows how to differentiate between a
required and an optional dependency.
LFS User : 4729
Linux User : 298329
warpcore - 20:06:20 up 13 min, 1 user, load average: 0.02, 0.14, 0.10
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the alfs-discuss