Revisiting SRS Section 2

James Robertson jwrober at
Sat Feb 12 09:02:18 PST 2005

Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Folks,
> As the SRS is about documenting requirements only, i.e. not design, I'm 
> proposing we remove section 2.1 (alfs Functions) entirely.  That seems 
> to me to be telling folks how alfs will do its job, the only exception 
> being the second sentence.  Once that's done, I think sections 2.2 and 
> 2.3 need swapping round so that we give a list of what the tool will do 
> first, then tell folks what other systems are available that may do some 
> or all of these.

I think we need this section still.  Maybe some rewording will help. 
What I was trying to say here was a quick overview of the tools 
function.  So, we want to tell the reader that alfs will support the XML 
schema, that it is supposed to be used to automate the build of an LFS 
based box, that it will make use of basic system utilities and not try 
to rewrite them, etc.  I like the fact that we put in there that logging 
and the profile are a schema and what that means.  We could be some 
references in there to conversations on this list or website that 
explain this more.  Just an idea.  The whole point of section 2 is to 
introduce the reader to "what is up" WRT what the tool/system is for. 
We can still do this and not lock in anything design wise.


More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list