[RFC] The Future of the ALFS project

Jeremy Huntwork jhuntwork at linuxfromscratch.org
Mon Feb 27 18:02:42 PST 2006

Thomas Pegg wrote:
  > The way I see it being nALFS/XML Profiles (not to mention the 
profiles a
> re very not up to date, I've had very little time with the way work has 
> been lately) are becoming obsolete, jhalfs is becoming a good 
> replacement, and doesn't require as much maintenance (a good plus). The 
> new alfs tool is seeming to become a dead app, unless someone can kick 
> start it into high gear, I don't have the energy much less the time to 
> try and do coding on it, otherwise I would do some myself.
> What do you the community think??

I know George M (gmak) has done some great concept work with regards to 
parsing the book with Bash alone. While I think this is great work, I 
think the focus of any research in this line should be done in C and get 
the alfs coding moving forward. jhalfs is good as an in-the-meantime 
tool and while it could benefit from a bash-only parser, it doesn't 
really *need* it at the moment.

I hesitated to say anything more about this to George because I didn't 
want to discourage his work, he's done some great stuff so far. But now 
that you've brought this up, Thomas, I think any further concept code 
and energy should, if at all possible, be directed toward alfs.

To that end, unless George M. (or someone else) steps up to start really 
moving on the alfs code, I can start spending any LFS time I have on it. 
(This would necessarily mean that I'd have to temporarily neglect any 
other fields, like LFS or LiveCD development.) Being that I'm at best 
only an amateur with C, I'd gladly jump to second or third place behind 
a more knowledgeable and energetic programmer. If I'm left to myself, 
I'll probably move along slowly, but I'll do my best to keep the list 
informed of any ideas/progress/road-blocks.

Those who more comfortable with Bash should keep going with jhalfs to 
make improvements and keep it moving. I think we should always have at 
least one functional and up-to-date tool.

As far as nALFS goes, perhaps it's time to start phasing it out.


More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list