Am Dienstag, 1. April 2008 21:13:16 schrieb Randy McMurchy: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote these words on 04/01/08 13:37 CST: > > Author: thomas > > Date: 2008-04-01 12:37:20 -0600 (Tue, 01 Apr 2008) > > New Revision: 7337 > > > > Log: > > Updates on usermod commands > > Comments follow. They are welcome!
> > ... > For clarity sake, please have a blank line after <para>'s and before > the <screen>. Ok, I'll fix them all... > > > <para>To have raw USB devices set up properly, add the following > > - <application>udev</application> rule and add any users > > - that need to access raw USB devices to the "usb" group.</para> > > Instead of "usb", it should be wrapped (without quotes) in a > <systemitem> tag. Grep the book sources for the exact syntax. Yes, in this case I did remove that "usb" part and inserted it again at another location (with updating to the systemitem-tag) > ... > > > + <note> > > + <para>You may need to log out and back in again to refresh your > > group + memberships. '<command>su > > <replaceable><username></replaceable></command>' + should > > work around this as well.</para> > > + </note> > > Actually, we're not really "working around" anything. Perhaps > (just my opinion) "would work as well" might be better. I've stolen that from svnserver where this sentence was in since four years now... ;-) Fixed them both. Btw, i'd like to use that mail to ask how you would like to see the editing. There are for sure much more such missing blank lines an so in the book. Should we do such kind of "redesign" while editing a source? I ask this because when doing developement/changes in application source codes, I use to modify as less as possible - not even fix a typo (in a comment). This may not be the way we want it here, isn't it? -- Thomas -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-book FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
