ALFS Limited to LFS Only?

Vassili Dzuba vassilidzuba at
Wed Feb 4 15:00:07 PST 2004

On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 19:15:38 -0600
James Robertson <jwrober at> wrote:

> Bill's LFS Login wrote:
> > On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Michael Kipper wrote:
> > 
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>I think that even though the name of this project is Automated Linux From
> >>Scratch, it should still encompass the entire LFS project as a whole.
> >>That being said, the Beyond Linux From Scratch profiles should be included
> >>as well in the main profile download dir.
> >>It's a pain to get them on an LFS system, if you have to go out and get the
> >>CVS version, which you never know if it's broken or something.
> >>I think there should be BLFS profile releases as well.
> >>
> >>Any thoughts?
> > 
> > I suspect that the archives contain discussions about this. Off the top
> > of my head, I recall that BLFS is not installed "end-to-end", as is LFS.
> > This makes generation of "standard" profiles much less useful because
> > each user has his own "target" configuration.
> Yes correct.  Vassili has been "attempting" to keep the BLFS profiles up
> to date, but he is often pulled onto other projects at work and such, so
> this makes it difficult.  Also, there is so much change in BLFS on a
> day-to-day basis, that one person could really only barely keep up.
> Heck, LFS has two profile editors just to keep up.

I don't have indeed many time to spend on the BLFS profile,
and of course i would be very happy if other people would
contribute to it...

The problems with the current profile, as i see them,
are the following:
- even if many packages are supported, they are not kept current
- i don't use so many of these packages, so that the only test 
  of many packages is only the build process
- i put each package in a separate file, organized by chapters
  using the numbering of the chapters in an old version of the
  book, and it is not very easy to rename a directory in CVS

Now this profile is nevertheless usefull (at least for me) as 
my home configuration has been build using it.

I think it would also be interesting to define an area in CVS
parallel to LFS and BLFS to put profiles for individual
packages that do not belong to any of these books. 
For instance an XLFS directory ?

> > 
> > IIRC, there is also an issue of complexity (disregarding the above) and
> > timeliness because BLFS contains so many more packages and they tend to
> > have a very high rate of change and more complex dependencies. Sometimes
> > the changes are in dependencies, sometimes in install instructions.
> > 
> > Having said all that, I don't feel anyone would object if some ambitious
> > volunteers generated some profiles for BLFS stuff and contributed them.
> The more the merrier, I always say.
> > 
> > But I would suspect that the regular team members would want to avoid
> > this (and I would recommend they avoid it unless we had a lot more team
> > members).
> nALFS does not do a good job (yet) of dependency control.  This is an
> active enhancement request that is "in the works".  I think that Kevin
> has been "thinking" on this topic for a bit.  It is going to require
> some changes to nALFS code as well as the DTD to make it work right.
> This stuff is not easy.
> James
> -- 
> James Robertson -- jwrober at linuxfromscratch dot org
> Reg. Linux User -- #160424 --
> Reg. LFS User   -- #6981   --
> LFS Bugzilla Maintainer    -- http://{blfs-}

Vassili Dzuba

More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list