John Kelly jakelly at shtc.net
Tue Sep 13 15:12:27 PDT 2005

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 00:22:57 -0400, Jeremy Huntwork
<jhuntwork at linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:

> I like make's verstatility and structure

Make is good for handling complex dependency relationships.  But
that's not main the problem to be solved when doing an automated build
of lfs or diy-linux.

At least for purposes of the build, there are no complex dependencies,
there is only a straight sequential order to be followed.  Any
potential dependencies among the various software components have
already been resolved by humans and set in stone, via the book
sequence itself.

The main problem to be solved for an automated build is simply
converting the book scriptlets to a form which allows chaining them
together in a script.  And of course you need some helper functions to
deal with unpacking and preparing tarballs so the scriptlets can run
their configure and make.

And if you want to get fancy you could always create some little tag
files for each successful build, so that when restarting, you could
look at those to see where you left off, thus achieving equivalency
with make, at least in that limited sense.

Of course make can solve the problem too, but I think with make, it's
harder for someone else to pick up your work and start customizing it
for their own local needs.

That's why I used shell scripts.  It's easy for others to pick up my
work and take off running with it.  I would have done just that, if
only someone else had solved the problem first.  But since no one had,
there I went ...

More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list