headers
Kendrick | 29 Feb 2000 01:17

Re: [RFC] The Future of the ALFS project

Jeremy Huntwork wrote:

> Being that I'm at best only an amateur with C, I'd gladly jump to
> second or third place behind a more knowledgeable and energetic
> programmer. If I'm left to myself, I'll probably move along slowly,
> but I'll do my best to keep the list informed of any
> ideas/progress/road-blocks.

I am intending to start devoting some time to it in the near future.  I
am in a c++ course right now and once i start getting more fluent in it,
I plan to do what i can for alfs
--

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/alfs-discuss
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Kendrick | 29 Feb 2000 01:51

Re: [RFC] The Future of the ALFS project

M.Canales.es wrote:

>El Martes, 28 de Febrero de 2006 19:20, Jeremy Huntwork escribió:
>
>  
>
>>Did I read you right, though, that you don't think a new alfs tool is
>>necessary?
>>    
>>
>
>I see some different tasks here:
>
>1) *LFS commands generation. nALFS uses hand-edited XML profiles to do that. 
>jhalfs extract automatically the commands using XSL, but work is in progress 
>to use a pure bash parser. Plus, a C parser is also under development.
>
>  
>
I think the issue is getting a tad confused here.  As per email around
11/25/2005 1:07 PM "SUMMARY: alfs direction"
we werent wholy intrested in xml so 1 is moot.  The structure of
profiles afaik has not been decided fully yet.  I would think that its
possible to incorperate jhalfs' method of auto generating sections to be
used in a larger pick n choose profile creation.  (ie like any distros
check the software you want to install,  then the installer here alfs
would setup exactly what you need.  clfs or hlfs or some specific
predefined base build then go for your blfs package sorts which would
cary forwards any special build cases like the cross builds.  another
reason for not jhalfs is the ability to remotly control 1 or 100 system
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Kendrick | 29 Feb 2000 02:02

Re: [RFC] The Future of the ALFS project

Bruce Dubbs wrote:

>Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>  
>
>>If so, in a situation like this, wouldn't it be more efficient to have
>>one machine build the master system, so to speak and then copy it over
>>to each of the others? Perhaps even create your own RPM repository
>>(don't cringe!) that you build, according to LFS instructions and then
>>deploy to the remaining clients.
>>    
>>
>
>Yup.  I did that quite successfully on several identical systems.  Just
>tar it up and untar into a fresh partition.  A couple of config files
>need to be updated for IP address, host name, etc, but overall it is a
>very efficient process.
>  
>
Jeremy  for just a couple of the same systems yes that works as Bruce
has statted.

point 1)  goal for alfs is to allow a corperate it admin for example. 
to tell machine a to be a dns krb server  machine b to be a 2ndary dns
and mail server machine c to be a web/proxy server....  machine m to be
a base system for accounting  machine n to be a base system for the
phone support department  machine o to be setup for managers... etc.  
when it comes time for the bord to decree hay we need this piece of
software for our call center which has additional parts that help the
managers to do ...  etc   the admin can rebuilt a test lab for this
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane