jcharles at provectio.org
Tue Oct 23 05:24:14 PDT 2007
Jeremy Huntwork a écrit :
> Hey all,
> I have heard some comments here and there by some saying that, as a
> tool, they prefer the way nALFS works over jhalfs. I can appreciate that.
> I was curious if anyone had given any thought to auto-generating
> profiles for nALFS in a similar way that the build scripts are generated
> for jhalfs?
Sure, I prefer the old nALFS way. I have thought of auto-generating xml
profiles, but I abandonned.We use to modified a bunch of packages and
have designed a sort of guidelines to make our LFS (to integrate paco
for examples), that we prefer to revisit each package. Then we don't
have to do it so often that it's not a pain. We see update as a way to
be closer to LFS changes.
In fact, I think that the auto-generated is the opposit of the mind of
LFS. It seems that if we don't make effort to write ourself profiles, we
can't be a LFS user. In that way, we just have to install a regular
distribution instead. I know it's a pain the first time (the second too
;-) ) but with experience it's a must (I like to know each details of
the system before its exploitation). And it's not so a pain to modify or
create some scripts in the spirit of BLFS. The LFS slogan is "your
distribution, your rules" , is'nt it ? then I do not like the idea of
digging in a really hard bash code to make my rules.
I am deeply deceived that the nALFS is no more developped (even my posts
about some patches was not answered, maybe they were too crappy, but I
would liked to know it) . There is a lot of things to do with that GREAT
piece of software. (conditionnal execution, integration of paco, manage
configuration files of packages ...)
My two cents ;-) with, despite that, 'A good luck' to all projects about
LFS. Really great works.
Ce message a ete verifie par MailScanner pour des virus ou des pouriels
et rien de suspect n'a ete trouve.
More information about the alfs-discuss