Guy Dalziel wrote these words on 08/01/09 08:06 CST: > On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 10:49:24PM +1000, Wayne Blaszczyk wrote: >> I thought it would be easier to follow a set of commands rather than a >> descriptive sentence (if you had the choice between two). > > However, > at the end of the day Randy has the final word, and if he says we should > cater for auto-build then we will.
Here's my take. It doesn't matter. However, there is a caveat to that. Once instructions are in place (and work properly) authored by one Editor, I look at it as rude to just go behind him and change the instructions. I will do this from time to time, but typically to fix typos and such. What I've always done in the past is let the community decide. For example, if it were me, instead of just going and making changes to instructions that were perfectly fine, I'd write a note to -dev saying, "I think we should change the instructions in the xyz package to (insert change here) as (insert explanation here)." Then, see what type of input the community gives. And, for the record, because I feel it is impossible to automate BLFS, (there are just too many options), using the reasoning of "it makes for better automation" doesn't fly the way I see things. Others may look at it differently. Mostly, I don't want to be a dictator or final authority unless there is something that the community cannot decide on or the community is 50/50 about something. -- Randy rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.25] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686] 08:46:00 up 25 days, 21:14, 1 user, load average: 0.01, 0.01, 0.00 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-book FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
