I've been trolling the ALFS threads since September so I might have missed something or just plain got lost in the communications. But what is the overall goal of the new design being suggested?
It sounds like to me a Client/Server system is being purposed that would allow us to setup LFS installs on a remote computer. Sounds neat, but why? I've setup 5 computers now with ALFS. I did my first install under a RedHat distro, after that I did 3 install with the LFS Live CD. The other 2 systems are only Pentium processors and they can't boot off CD (really old, but work great). So for those, I installed the drives in my builder system and did a cross build. Once I had the drive setup for boot I then reinstalled it in the other computer. Worked great. They only reason I could see doing a Client/Server like install would be if I wanted to do more then one computer at a time. But then why wouldn't I just build one drive and then copy the image to each drive on the other systems? I can see flaws with my suggestion, like the trouble of removing drives or using a tool like Norton Ghost for the images. But there are a few problems with remote builds also. I'm not trying to be negative about the project and the suggestions. I've really enjoy using LFS and all it's sub-projects, and would like to contribute to the project. I just don't understand the goal and overall benefit of the suggestions. I've only seen technical suggestions on implementation at this time, not about design concepts. Thanks, Mark -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/alfs-discuss FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
