Alfs Schedule

Gerard Beekmans gerard at linuxfromscratch.org
Tue Sep 5 13:02:18 PDT 2000


>  - Decide on exact sample xml structures for a LFS profile

I'm working on one right now. I'll post it in a few hours. That version is 
going to be xmlprofile-beta1 and we'll hack on that one. The profile will 
only get us to chroot though. When that first stage is approved we'll move 
on. the rest will be a piece of cake then.

>  - Build a complete 2.4 LFS profile with all the right xml structures

That will take a few weeks. Let's tackle up to chroot first before we create 
a huge xml profile that installs 45+ packages and will be hard to debug.

>  - Have Gerard bless the profile
>  - Work for a few weeks letting people build backends to build the profile
>  - Test backends, perfect backends to build the profile correctly
>  - Once we have some sort of stable backend that builds a 2.4 from a
> profile we can start to add options

Sounds good.

>  - First options we add are for LFS itself. This will help us explore
> options in general without losing focus and adding a bunch of additional
> programs that are really non-lfs.
>  - Once we can get some basic options with LFS to work, we can work on
>    perfecting the front-ends for LFS. At this point we at least have a tool
>    which is usable for everyone's LFS system.
>  - When we get to the point that everyone is happy with the basic tool
>    and we know it works for LFS, then I say we open the idea board wide
>    and start defining additional structures, redefining the ones we are
>    using, add whole new ideas, etc......

Sounds good too.

> The way we are doing that is by building common structures that let
> programmers implement their own ideas into their backends/front-ends.
> Although we should control the basic core of the structures, I think we
> should open up the whole thing in a way similiar to how apache works.
> Who knows what someone might do with these ideas, and I think we should
> have some way to encourage those new ideas. Xml Structures is one way,
> a module, add-on framework could be another?

I don't think we should make things too modular at this moment else it'll be 
difficult to get something working. We can always add support for that later 
on when we have something running. 

-- 
Gerard Beekmans
www.linuxfromscratch.org

-*- If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem -*-





More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list