ALFS Direction

James Robertson jwrober at
Mon Nov 15 10:15:35 PST 2004

Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Hi Everyone!
> First I want to say thank you for your support and confidence, and I 
> look forward to working with all of you.

You are welcome and welcome aboard.

> Considering the recent discussions that have taken place on this list, 
> there are two areas I'd like to see the ALFS team focus on at present:
> 1) Investigate what needs to be done to auto-generate or update ALFS 
> profiles when the book is edited. Jamie Bennett mentioned that he was 
> going to take another look at lfscmd.

No comment.  I am not a fan of it as I don't think that we can get a 
"best of breed" profile auto generated.  A manual approach (as much work 
as that takes) provides the opportunity for a human brain to intervene 
and say "this is done better with a ...".

> 2) Full speed ahead on the new ALFS build tool!  Our new tool (according 
> to current concept) will be nothing like the current nALFS, and won't be 
> based on Neven Has' code, therefore, as Kevin pointed out to me, there's
> no need to call it nALFS2.

I think you are off there.  The idea to split nALFS into a client-server 
model was on Neven's original do list.  I sincerely hope we keep the 
name nALFS as our tool is going to based on Neven's root work.  I think 
a lot of the code can and will be carried over to v2.x

> We've already got some good discussion on 
> what the tool will be, and a nicely prepared wiki page on the subject.
> Here:
> We need to finalize on the feature set of the new tool, so we can then 
> choose a language to use based on what fits our needs.  Once that is 
> done, we can begin organizing a development team.  So consider this the 
> re-opening/finalizing of the discussion of our future build tool.

We should also ensure that the requirements def is fully fleshed out.  I 
just added some sections.  We also need to get consensus on the other 
pieces provided on the main page you provided a link for.  Do we want to 
do a vote system of some kind?  We could do it right in the wiki to keep 
it simple.

> Anyone feel that there any other outstanding issues that ALFS needs to 
> concentrate on at this time?

I think we need to determine what (if any) work is going to occur on the 
1.2.x branch.  What is broken that needs to be fixed?  I am working to 
get the docs up to speed on that branch, so I do expect us to release 
another tarball when I am done.  We need to finalize any and all changes 
to the ALFS DTD spec and the new logging DTD spec (with docs).  I know 
that these are very important to moving forward.  nALFS 1.2 is for sure 
in maint mode, but we do need to agree on what maint is going to look 
like.  I would say no new features, only bug fixes and doc updates.

> As Jamie mentioned in another post, there is now an IRC channel for the 
> development of ALFS at called #alfs-dev. I'm 
> often there and I'd like to encourage others who are interested in the 
> development of ALFS to join me.  I will be sure to keep logs of my 
> conversations there, and will also post to alfs-discuss with any 
> information of importance.

Cool, I will add it to my auto open list.

> Let's have some fun! ;)
> ---------------
> Jeremy Huntwork


James Robertson -- jwrober at linuxfromscratch dot org
Reg. Linux User -- #160424 --
Reg. LFS User   -- #6981   --
LFS Bugzilla Maintainer    -- http://{blfs-}

More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list