Wether to release BLFS 5.1 or not ? was [Re: BLFS profile status and nALFS update]

Thomas Pegg thomasp at linuxfromscratch.org
Wed Nov 3 18:15:52 PST 2004

Hash: SHA1

Jamie Bennett wrote:
| On Tue, 2004-11-02 at 13:03 -0500, Thomas Pegg wrote:
| <snip>
|>Anyways those are just some thoughts I had, what do the rest of you think?
| Dependency tracking would be a great addition to nALFS if nALFS is to
| move away from building just LFS/BLFS systems and into the realms of a
| fully fledged package manager but it depends entirely on the goals of
| the project. At the moment (AFAIK) nALFS development hasn't just stalled
| it's completely stopped and nALFS2 is just a pipe dream. I gave it a
| start as customers of mine were after an nALFS tool with extra
| functionality but it got scrapped early on in favour of a simpler design
| and XML went out of the window (If anyones interested it uses OGDL
| now).
| I think nALFS in its current state fulfils its original intended use,
| that of an automated tool for building LFS/BLFS systems. If we start
| adding things such as dependency tracking I'd really like to see the
| project re-done from scratch but thats just MHO.
| 	--	Jamie
You made some good points Jamie.

And after having thought about this for a while after I wrote my
original message yesterday. I've found that I've overestimated too much
as to what's needed to release the BLFS profile in a functional state.
To put it simply we can't have BLFS.xml in book order. Now what I'm
thinking is that the contents of BLFS.xml should be left to the user of
the profile, basically it should be stripped down to nothing but the
basic elements to make the other profiles work properly, then let the
users pick which packages they want to install by adding the appropriate
xinclude lines, now good documentation will have to put in the file on
how to do this but that's a simple task. The reason I think this may be
way to go is because in BLFS dependencies are a key factor, since nALFS
is unable to handle dependencies well on it's own, it just seems
logical. True this may not make the profile as user-friendly as the LFS
profiles, but since BLFS is so customizable why not make the profile
customized to your needs as soon as you download, instead of using a
layout someone else chose.

- --
LFS User : 4729
Linux User : 298329
warpcore -  21:01:58 up 12 min,  2 users,  load average: 0.01, 0.10, 0.08
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list