An alternate automation approach?

Jeremy Huntwork jhuntwork at
Tue Aug 9 06:39:37 PDT 2005

> Folks,
> I have debated broaching this subject for several weeks. Dont crucify me
> too bad.

Hi Chuck,

I understand your concerns. And to be honest, I'm not really a huge fan of
nALFS either. That's part of the reason I opted to use make for automating
the LFS LiveCD build. The proposed specs for alfs offer more of the
functionality I'd like to see in a officially supported build tool, but
progress on that has been slow.

I personally wouldn't mind offering an alternative solution for those that
are more comfortable with scripts and prefer less overhead. In fact,
Manuel Canales has created a XSL stylesheet that extracts all the commands
from the LFS Book XML source and dumps them into text files. I've been
(slowly - time is precious lately...) trying to work with the extracted
commands and produce some sort of automation based on them. I'd really
like to see that go somewhere because it offers a much more accurate way
to test the book's commands, and there's no need to maintain profiles.

Anyway, I'd at least like to see your scripts, and I'd like to ask the
rest of the community to please speak up on this point. Should ALFS offer
alternative build methods? Should it officially support more than one? If
so, how many others and with what goals in mind? I would still very much
like to see alfs take off become what we envisioned it, however, in the
meantime, I would also like to see an end to ALFS stagnation.


More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list