Sync with the current LFS-Book

Kevin P. Fleming kpfleming at
Wed Oct 20 12:29:21 PDT 2004

Daniel Baumann wrote:

>  >> The Background of this patch is to be absolutely consequent and
>  >> similiar to the lfs-book
> the lfs-book uses the corresponding names for the xml-files.

But why should the names used in the book's XML source make any 
difference? The profile does not follow the XML source, it follows the 
completed (generated) book. It would be perfectly valid for the profile 
to be in a single combined file (and in fact my own personal version 
used to be that way), and that would in no way detract from its 
usefulness or make it "imperfect".

If you want it to be "perfect", then we'll have to remove all the 
optimizations and optional features that the profile has that are not in 
the book, change the search_replace elements back to "sed" commands, 
etc. Our goal with the profile has never been to provide an exact list 
of instructions extracted from the book, but to provide a usable, 
configurable profile that produces the same _result_ as the book. 
Producing a "perfect" profile from the book's XML source files can be 
done using an XSLT stylesheet, if that's what is wanted.

I'll leave it to the others to decide, but I'm not at all convinced that 
the source files used in the profile need to be renamed just because the 
source files used in the book have different names; the only thing that 
matters to me is that what the end-user sees (in both cases) matches as 
best it can. The method used to arrive at that point seems far less 
important in my opinion.

More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list