ALFS Direction

Jeremy Huntwork jhuntwork at
Mon Nov 15 18:33:08 PST 2004

James Robertson wrote:

> 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'll see what happens in that regard. If we largely base our code on 
Neven's work and concepts, we may want to go ahead and call the new tool 
nALFS2. If however it is largely new code, we can always call the tool 
something else and credit Neven in our code/docs for whatever we do use, 
including original concepts.

> 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.

I'm not sure if voting is necessary. What I'd like to see is a consensus 
on the requirements and feature set for our new tool by the current ALFS 
team members first.  Once we agree on what we've got and what we're 
proposing, we can present it to the rest of the LFS community via the 
mailing list.  So yes, let's get the rest of the ALFS team to peruse 
what we've currently got on the wiki and speak their minds. James thanks 
for your hard work in getting this together.

>> 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.
Yes, we need to get that finalized. As per your suggestion in #alfs-dev 
;) I'll get together some notes on outstanding work in that area, and 
we'll get specific stuff marked and assigned.

Jeremy Huntwork

More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list