Well, I pretty much hoped I had more time to prepare for this, but since
Randy brought it up here we go. (gonna be a long one...)
Randy McMurchy wrote:
In my opinion, the book should represent the proper build order
more than an alphabetical order.
+1 !!
I spend the last couple of weeks
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 12:34:27PM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
In my opinion, the book should represent the proper build order
more than an alphabetical order.
Thoughts from others?
Agreed completely.
--
Archaic
Want control, education, and security from your operating system?
Hardened
Archaic wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 12:34:27PM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
In my opinion, the book should represent the proper build order
more than an alphabetical order.
Thoughts from others?
Agreed completely.
I don't know if it will help you guys out, but in my own
Jeremy Utley wrote these words on 04/12/05 23:23 CST:
[snip]
That's the order my ALFS profile for BLFS runs in..it's not 100%
perfect, and it doesn't include everything, but it'll at least maybe
help you guys get a start on things.
Thanks for the input Jeremy, however, I'm not so much
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Jeremy Utley wrote these words on 04/12/05 23:23 CST:
Alphabetical serves no useful purpose, when it contradicts the
proper build order. At least that's my opinion, anyway.
We can go back to the other order, but I put those sections in alpha
order because of a problem I was
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 04/13/05 00:33 CST:
Please sit back and relax. Consider another view. I'll certainly
consider yours. What really is the impact?
Sit back and relax. Okay..
I've sat back and relaxed now.
The build order in the programming section should have Tcl, Tk,
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 04/13/05 00:33 CST:
I've built over a hundred packages in the last week. What I found was
that I was continually scanning the TOC for packages. The size of the
TOC and the non-alpha order made it difficult for me to quickly find the
package I wanted.
May
