Ag Hatzim wrote these words on 01/05/06 09:34 CST: [snip] > Sorry for my long mail and ..
A bunch of comment from non-BLFS editors saying we need to do this and that and this and that to make it easier. I don't believe y'all got the message of Bruce's question. :-) There are no BLFS Editors complaining about the maintenance or upkeep of the book, as it stands right now. Bruce is asking the group what should be the best way to go forward with the *additional* work. Now, I have an advantage to this because Bruce sent one private email to me asking about this issue, and he asked the question a bit differently. What I get out of Bruce's question (and possible remedies) is this: We need to start considering adding some multilib and additional I18n issues to BLFS, what is that best way to go forward.? And just for the record, because nobody has really answered the question Bruce asked of yet (granted, it may have been hard to determine the real question), my opinion is the wiki idea he mentioned for these reasons. 1) It takes some of the load off of BLFS editors and places it on the folks that are more qualified to contribute the instructions. 2) It takes some of the responsibility for technical accuracy off of BLFS editors and places it on the folks more qualified. 3) After the wiki instructions are known good, stable and well tested, it is trivial for BLFS editors to migrate the information to the book. -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 09:32:00 up 102 days, 18:56, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.16, 0.44 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
