> Folks, > > I have debated broaching this subject for several weeks. Dont crucify me > too bad.
Hi Chuck, I understand your concerns. And to be honest, I'm not really a huge fan of nALFS either. That's part of the reason I opted to use make for automating the LFS LiveCD build. The proposed specs for alfs offer more of the functionality I'd like to see in a officially supported build tool, but progress on that has been slow. I personally wouldn't mind offering an alternative solution for those that are more comfortable with scripts and prefer less overhead. In fact, Manuel Canales has created a XSL stylesheet that extracts all the commands from the LFS Book XML source and dumps them into text files. I've been (slowly - time is precious lately...) trying to work with the extracted commands and produce some sort of automation based on them. I'd really like to see that go somewhere because it offers a much more accurate way to test the book's commands, and there's no need to maintain profiles. Anyway, I'd at least like to see your scripts, and I'd like to ask the rest of the community to please speak up on this point. Should ALFS offer alternative build methods? Should it officially support more than one? If so, how many others and with what goals in mind? I would still very much like to see alfs take off become what we envisioned it, however, in the meantime, I would also like to see an end to ALFS stagnation. -- JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/alfs-discuss FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
