nALFS users

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?

--
JH
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/alfs-discu
ss
FAQ: http://www.linux
fromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

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?
>
> --
> JH
>   
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.

JC Passard



-- 
Ce message a ete verifie par MailScanner pour des virus ou
des pouriels 
et rien de suspect n'a ete trouve.

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/alfs-discu
ss
FAQ: http://www.linux
fromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

On Saturday 20 October 2007 20:19, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> 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 like jhalfs more. I never had got the nALFS thing work
proper (which maybe 
my fault) but jhalfs worked for me right out of the box,
even for ppc. And, 
when fooling around with an own version of a book (for
instance, the official 
ones are a bit to far behind the newest versions or
something like that) I 
simply run jhalfs against this book without the need to
maintain another set 
of XMLs. For me, a big plus to jhalfs.
>
> 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?
Well generating those XMLs would reduce the need to maintain
separate sets of 
XMLs.  But this would not bring me too much benefits.

--
Thomas
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/alfs-discu
ss
FAQ: http://www.linux
fromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page