SUMMARY: alfs direction

pak_lfs at pak_lfs at
Fri Nov 25 14:00:25 PST 2005

Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Yes, that's good. :) Except that it would almost be better done as
> individual files, like:
> 028-gcc-pass1.configure
> 028-gcc-pass1.make
> 028-gcc-pass1.install
> So that they could be called and sent individually.

Yes! That 's what I 'd like to see too. 

Actually, I 'd better like it like this:


Or even better:

Maybe then you can also store the 'profile' collection (above Jobs/
dir) on the server. This won't require making the server any smarter.
If you ask "execute gcc-pass1 prepare" 

it just looks in Jobs/gcc-pass1 for an executable file named 'prepare'
and if its there, it runs it. The benefit (besides the minor performance
benefit of not sending the commands to each and every server assuming
you update many at the same time) is in convenience. 

Each host will be slightly different than the others (e.g., different IP), so 
by storing the profiles on the server you could have a slightly different 
profile collection on each remote host (a slight difference in apache 
'configure' for example), but you just need to broadcast 'execute apach 
configure' to all and each will *do the right thing*, without imposing extra
"smarts" to the client *or* the server (the code is in the profiles where it 

What do you think?

____________________________________________________________________ - äùñåÜí õðçñåóßá çëåêôñïíéêïý ôá÷õäñïìåßïõ. - free email service for the Greek-speaking.

More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list