differences between custom-tools, blfs-tool and blfs-support
xlfs at gmx.de
Tue Jun 10 06:59:20 PDT 2008
George Boudreau schrieb:
> Benjamin John wrote:
>> I want to use jhalfs for automated building.
> I recommend you do a plain vanilla build first to familiarize yourself
> with procedure and iron out any problems you have. You can always flush
> the partition and start over with a more extensive build later. Walk
> before you run, run before you fly.
I forget to mention that I use LFS since version 5.1. First I build
everything by hand follow by using nALFS up to LFS-Version 6.3. After
nALFS I tried the framework for creating the LiveCD provided by
Alexander Patrakov. But all of these have the disadvantage of complex
So I would give the jhalfs a try, it seems to be easy to maintain, all
what you want for a special package is in one file and the Makefile
could be generated to include all extra (outside of xLFS) packages.
>> After playing around with
>> some options (with or without custom tool, blfs-deps, blfs-support) I
>> wonder what is the _technical_ difference between these three possibilities.
>> Am I right when I say custom tools and blfs-deps are technical the same,
>> where blfs-deps are used for working with the blfs-book sources after
>> rebooting into the new system and custom tools are for whatever I want
>> to use after the reboot?
> Yes. If you intend to extend LFS using the BLFS book instructions
> there are dependencies that need to be satisfied.
Of course. That's not the problem. Mentioned above I used different
approaches to build all packages I need and for all of these I got the
right order (this is one of the most complex maintenance problems)
> If, on the other hand, you have a limited set of apps you wish to
> install and do not want to install all of the overhead necessary to
> support the BLFS book you can hand craft build scripts. There is is no
> hand-holding when you create your own scripts, you are on your own.
> Follow the format. Follow the format and examples given in /custom.
I have a set of apps, some in the books, others not so I want to use
the books as a base for the other apps.
>> And the blfs-support is meant for building the book (or a part of)
>> inside the new created system?
>> What would be the difference, when I put every package I want from the
>> blfs book an some packages more directly in custom tools, so that these
>> packages would be build after the lfs-book is finished?
> You are responsible for all the dependency resolution and script
> editing. You can dig a very deep hole using this method and rope may be
> in short supply to pull you out.
My idea is to create the set of apps from the book I need (lets say
KDE-core) with the help of blfs-support and copy the result to the
custom tools section of the LFS book (I think there are some
>> One difference I saw, is that inside the new system the build process
>> runs as user and only the installation is done by root.
>> What about building after the lfs-scripts (in custom tools)? Is it all
>> done by root or all by the specified user?
> It has been a while since I wrote the 'custom' section. If I am not
> mistaken it is run under chroot.
My intention for all this is to get an automated build environment for
xLFS plus some extra apps an deviations from the books to build xLFS on
different machines (with slightly different makefiles) and to have a
tool to test new apps or versions.
Jhalfs is meant to create the base for this environment and everything
else is done by me.
So the question is, is there a difference (in the "end product", file
permissions, linking to the proper libs, etc.) between building the
BLFS- and other apps in the custom tool section and building in BLFS
support after reboot
More information about the alfs-discuss