ALFS shortcomings

Roger Merchberger zmerch-lfs at
Thu Sep 20 13:31:37 PDT 2007

Rumor has it that may have mentioned these words:
>El Jueves, 20 de Septiembre de 2007 20:01, Roger Merchberger escribió:
> > Having just gotten back into working with LFS on my new (refurb) dual-core
> > Turion lappy, I thought I'd really like the progress bar, until it hit
> > 100%, wrapped around & started over. That's when I figured out (correct me
> > if I'm wrong) that it doesn't show the status of the package being built,
> > it's just a graphical second count-off timer... am I right?
>Yes, it's only a time counter.
>We can't know beforehand how many time a package build will take on a
>particular machine, thus there is no proper way, at least that I know, to
>draw an actual status bar :-/

What follows is an academic discussion, I certainly am not proposing anyone 
(including myself) actually do all this work... ;-)

If my boss told me[1] I _had_ to build in a working progress counter, I'd 
approach the "problem" this way:

For larger processes with many steps / commands... say 20, issue each step 
a 5% complete status, and update the bar at each step...

If it was a long process with only a few steps, if the application had 
access to the process logging, one could tee & grep the logs & when certain 
"milestones" were reached one could update the progress bar.

If it were a very short process (less than 30 seconds or so on a slowish 
machine) I wouldn't even bother... I'd just put a status line of "This 
should be done very soon."

Again, this is just academic blathering... ;-)

Roger "Merch" Merchberger

[1] Please note: if I had a boss that told me that, I'd still ask him if it 
was worth that much work for what little (any?) benefit...

Roger "Merch" Merchberger -- SysAdmin, Iceberg Computers
zmerch at

What do you do when Life gives you lemons,
and you don't *like* lemonade?????????????

More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list