[RFC] SRS Section 3

Matthew Burgess matthew at linuxfromscratch.org
Mon Feb 7 12:49:41 PST 2005

Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> And some of the stuff that is mentioned 
> in the links is, IMHO, sufficiently described in the main SRS.

And IMHO such descriptions don't belong in the main SRS - they're not 
describing *requirements*, they're describing design/implementation 
details.  Jamie/James can probably best answer this one, but is it 
common to have links from the requirements spec to the design docs, or 
is it usually just links back from the design to the requirements?

Remember Jeremy (and others of course) - someone should be able to take 
the requirements spec and see exactly *what* alfs will do, without 
getting bogged down in any low-level details.  For example, we should 
state that alfs will:
   1. Validate the XML based on a xyz schema language
   2. Process the XML into a set of commands to be run on the machine to 
be built
   3. Verify MD5sums of packages
   4. Download packages

Note here there are absolutely no details regarding how any of the above 
is achieved (it could be via mind-reading for all we care at this point 
in time!).  That's not the point of the SRS - it's purely to note what 
will be offered by the tool; what features the developers will have to 
code.  There's a lot of stuff in the current SRS (particularly in 
section 3) which crosses the line into design documentation.  I'd like 
to rip that out, but wanted to wait until it was in XML before doing so.



More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list