alfs Requirements [Was blank]

Spahn, Daniel DSpahn at cuh2a.com
Tue Oct 21 14:09:59 PDT 2008


It sounds like this involves drastically changing most of the fundamental processes and philosophies of the LFS project. I would suggest, that if you want to have automated builds with package management, that you look at Gentoo Linux. I has all this in place, and might suit your needs better than LFS. If you wanted to stick with LFS, you could also get some ideas from the Gentoo distro. It's been my favorite since I began learning Linux.

Daniel Spahn

Computer Systems Manager


-----Original Message-----
From: alfs-discuss-bounces at linuxfromscratch.org [mailto:alfs-discuss-bounces at linuxfromscratch.org] On Behalf Of Jon Herron
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 4:58 PM
To: ALFS Discussion and Development List
Subject: Re: alfs Requirements [Was blank]

I agree its a far reaching goal, but I do think the benefits could be
huge, assuming of course the dependencies could be properly
maintained.  Perhaps a first step would be to keep the current book
intact, and list "lfs" as a dependency for another application that the
user wants to fetch and build for instance.

On a side note, if dependencies were introduced into the current book,
then one could theoretically initiate more than one build paths
concurrently, in hopes of reducing overall build time (at least for certain
portions of the build process anyway).

 Thanks,


Jon Herron



----- Original Message ----
> From: Mike McCarty <Mike.McCarty at sbcglobal.net>
> To: ALFS Discussion and Development List <alfs-discuss at linuxfromscratch.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 2:11:25 PM
> Subject: Re: alfs Requirements [Was blank]
>
> Jon Herron wrote:
> > I have been tossing the idea around of using an intermediary format, which is
> > derived from the lfs sources/book, as I feel too that using the sources
> dierectly
> > this is the way to go.  Not only does the automated tool not have to incur
> > maintenance when the book is updated, but the automated tool can also serve
> > as a unit test of sorts to make sure the userinputs defined in the xml sources
>
> > are correct.  Naturally translating from sources to another format could
> negate
> > the unit test theory in its purest form, but what could be gained is a
> "package"
> > description of sorts that allowed for other applications to be installed
> during an
> > lfs/blfs build.  If I recall correctly this exists in jhlfs and I think it
> would be a great
> > feature to keep.
>
> [...]
>
> This is a laudable goal, but incurs the necessity of
> adding dependency information into the book, unless
> one only wants to build the "minimal system". If the
> work is done "right", then additional packages not in
> the "minimal system" could also be built using the
> same tool, just with different books.
>
> Mike
> --
> p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
> Oppose globalization and One World Governments like the UN.
> This message made from 100% recycled bits.
> You have found the bank of Larn.
> I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
> --
> http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/alfs-discuss
> FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
> Unsubscribe: See the above information page




--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/alfs-discuss
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page




More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list