Randy McMurchy wrote: > When I asked him about it, he said that the policy of patches was > that only 'required' patches could be added to the book. Sure enough > there is text in the book that explains what and why patches are > put in BLFS. Optional patches don't qualify to the listed criteria. > > Igor finally relented to my pressuring him about it, and added the > patch in as "Required (if you have CrackLib installed)". I've since > then used his method of adding in patches that aren't truly required > except if you have a dependency installed as a way of circumventing > the patch policy. > > So, ever since then, I've always made sure to say the patch was > 'Required' (perhaps with some stipulation like Firefox has). > > Hopefully, this makes sense. And, to be honest, I like the patch > policy that exists, as I believe it keeps unnecessary and undesired > patches out of the book. > > If you think I should change it to "optional" I'll be glad to, but > we need to consider the policy in place.
Hmm. We do need to limit the optional patches somewhat. How do you feel about "Recommeded Patches" where the editor managing the page makes the call about what to recommend? -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
