On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 00:22:57 -0400, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I like make's verstatility and structure Make is good for handling complex dependency relationships. But that's not main the problem to be solved when doing an automated build of lfs or diy-linux. At least for purposes of the build, there are no complex dependencies, there is only a straight sequential order to be followed. Any potential dependencies among the various software components have already been resolved by humans and set in stone, via the book sequence itself. The main problem to be solved for an automated build is simply converting the book scriptlets to a form which allows chaining them together in a script. And of course you need some helper functions to deal with unpacking and preparing tarballs so the scriptlets can run their configure and make. And if you want to get fancy you could always create some little tag files for each successful build, so that when restarting, you could look at those to see where you left off, thus achieving equivalency with make, at least in that limited sense. Of course make can solve the problem too, but I think with make, it's harder for someone else to pick up your work and start customizing it for their own local needs. That's why I used shell scripts. It's easy for others to pick up my work and take off running with it. I would have done just that, if only someone else had solved the problem first. But since no one had, there I went ... -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/alfs-discuss FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
