John Kelly jakelly at shtc.net
Mon Sep 12 18:00:19 PDT 2005

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 19:13:11 -0400, Jeremy Huntwork
<jhuntwork at linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:

> My main reason for choosing make as a build method is for it's
> ability to pick up where it left off in cases of errors or user
> interruption.

Make is useful to a point.  But I'd rather debug bash scripts than a
tangled conglomeration of makefiles.  My diy-linux automation script
takes the simple approach.  If you want to restart, you just comment
out what already succeeded.  That's easier than trying to understand
why a makefile is not doing what you expect.  :-)

My script solution could be more clever, like make, with a little
effort put to the task.   But for my needs, it's already good enough.
Once you work through the initial errors and problems, and finish the
first complete build, there's not much more to be done after that.
>From then on, you just change version numbers of the source tarballs
and build again.

Make really isn't necessary for this task.  But each to his own.

More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list