[RFC] The Future of the ALFS project

Jeremy Huntwork jhuntwork at linuxfromscratch.org
Tue Feb 28 11:28:32 PST 2006


M.Canales.es wrote:
> El Martes, 28 de Febrero de 2006 19:20, Jeremy Huntwork escribió:
> 3) Administrative tasks. Using local profiles nALFS can be used to automatize 
> several system administration tasks. jhalfs could do that also creating a 
> separate module.
> 
> 4) Remote builds/administration. That is what is supossed that the new alfs 
> server/client tool should to do, using nALFS, jhalfs or anything else as a 
> backend.
> 
> Based on that, I think that jhalfs is a working nALFS replacement for 1) and 
> 2), and maybe 3). But 4) will require a new different tool.

Excellent. Thanks Manuel. I was going to reply to Bruce with something 
similar, but you've hit it first. :)

There were many requests for features to be implemented in alfs. The 
alfs-SRS gives a good background of what was discussed.

http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/alfs/view/alfs-srs/alfs-srs.html

jhalfs wasn't meant to even attempt to cover all that was asked, so if 
we *are* going to include the requested features, something more needs done.

However, I've been doing some thinking about this, especially in 
connection with the managing of multiple systems (which includes remote 
building). The proposed model would have been one 'client' (client in 
the sense that it initiates remote connections to alfs daemons) which 
sends out commands for the daemons to process and run - the daemons 
build LFS on the remote machines. The idea was to be able to manage from 
one machine the building of LFS onto several machines.

But, when managing several machines this way, is it really necessary to 
have *each* of them build LFS individually? Let's say that all your 
client machines are i686 (which is very likely). Would not building LFS 
in the exact same way, with the exact same commands, on each of those 
machines produce *exactly* the same code? (kernel individualization not 
counted)

If so, in a situation like this, wouldn't it be more efficient to have 
one machine build the master system, so to speak and then copy it over 
to each of the others? Perhaps even create your own RPM repository 
(don't cringe!) that you build, according to LFS instructions and then 
deploy to the remaining clients.

I don't know - but the more I think about it, the more I feel that such 
a setup would be more useful than what was originally suggested.

--
JH



More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list