ALFS Status: Past and future [was Re: new guy, newbie questions.]

Mark Ellis mark.uzumati at
Sun Jan 20 12:33:54 PST 2002

On 2002.01.20 02:58 Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 19, 2002 at 02:42:20PM -0800, Jesse Tie-Ten-Quee wrote:
> > So, I do not plan on ignoring anyone.  That, as you mentioned would
> be a
> > true waste.  But at the same time, i'm not going to spend 6 months,
> > debating about the best way to go, the best implementation or the
> best
> > syntax.  I am sick and tired of it, i've been doing it for nearly
> two
> > years.. i hope that doesn't make me look like i have no patience.
> I've
> > actually gained quite alot latelly, but the fact is, it's better to
> > start with something and build on it, then have nothing to show for
> 6
> > months of work.  Because... in reality we have nothing to show for
> the
> > last 2 years, perhaps the only thing that we do have is the very old
> > syntax we had prototyped. (which we never had plans to use for
> longer
> > then a few months.. which is still being used)
> As I have worked very hard for my own project since some time I think
> my
> opinion whould be good at least to hear it.
> I don't want to be pessimist, but I want to express my feeling that
> the
> current ideas is not the right way. I like the idea of xml profiles,
> but
> I think there should be more processing, lot's of things can be
> guessed
> by some code and generate the finall commands to run.
> There should be less hardcoded information so for example just having
> "mcrypt" might install mcrypt with the defaults for every package. If
> no
> more information is provided why not to guess it? We are talking about
> an "automated" system, why no to make it smart an think the most it
> can
> in order to help us?

For certain things yes i agree, but you cant guess everything. A simple 
example would be that while most (all ?) GNU software uses "configure", 
perl uses "Configure", and you don't configure lilo at all, this has to 
be hardcoded somewhere.

> There can even be different levels of processing an the corresponding
> information can be stored somewhere. This requieres a little bit more
> explanation but the point is that it's different to add a patch than
> update the version.
> Also I don't like C for bash stuff, I even tryied Python but I had no
> luck. It seems bash was not done to interact with it, but that doesn't
> mean it can't be done.

Personally i'd rather not interact with bash at all, it's not strictly 
necessary, just easier in some cases.

> Most of the work I've done has been to make a good and smart design so
> I
> don't have to type everything. That's why I don't like the current
> xml format, you have to specify almost everything! It seems much more
> a
> script with vars like BASH-VERSION=2.05.
> I'll really like to work on ALFS, I even did a parser following an
> approach that has alredy worked to me since a while, but no one except
> Neven Has seems to care about my ideas. I'm sad you said "let's start

Sorry Felipe, heres another hand up for someone following your 
comments, just quietly :)

Unsubscribe: send email to listar at
and put 'unsubscribe alfs-discuss' in the subject header of the message

More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list