RFC: Is there a use for blfs-tool?
tom.pegg at gmail.com
Sat Feb 18 14:23:43 PST 2012
On Feb 18, 2012, at 6:41 AM, Pierre Labastie wrote:
> When configuring jhalfs, the user is given the possibility
> of choosing "Beyond Linux From Scratch" in the
> "Use BOOK" menu. That basically disables all the settings you
> have when running jhalfs, except the choice of
> the Release and of a few directories needed for
> blfs-tools. Then `blfs-tool' is run instead of
> `jhalfs'. Basically, `blfs-tool' performs a few
> checks, and sets up a "blfs_root" directory in
> users's $HOME. It then launches make in that
> All the preceding supposes that LFS is already
> installed (with the BLFS dependencies, DocBook,
> Lynx and friends). It does not much more than
> what jhalfs does when ticking "Add blfs-tool support".
> The only part which is missing after jhalfs is
> moving "blfs_root" to user's $HOME, which is
> not mandatory actually.
> Furthermore, choosing blindly "Beyond Linux From Scratch" in the
> "Use BOOK" menu on a non LFS system is potentially harmfull,
> since you might end up installing BLFS packages on your
> host system!
> So my proposition is to remove altogether the
> "Beyond Linux From Scratch" choice and the blfs-root script.
> See attached patch.
I personally have never seen much use for blfs-tool. I've thought about removing it before too. It's hard to automate BLFS in the same way as we do LFS or CLFS, being it's not linear. While I believe it does try to do dependency checks, its not easy to code or maybe it is, I've never really looked to deep into it. I just know in comparing it to say gentoo and their portage tool, that the code inside portage is really complex (in Python no less). I personally have no objection to removing it, but there may be those that want to keep it.
More information about the alfs-discuss