Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 01/23/06 18:21 CST: > 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?
Not sure... I think then, that patches could end up in the book because somebody "thinks" it is a good thing and it would definitely conflict with the policy. Not that it is that great of an issue, though. However, if it were me, I would just revise the policy slightly to include optional patches for dependencies, if those patches fix brokenness. So, for cases like Firefox, Thunderbird, Mozilla and Heimdal (there's probably others by now), if a dependency couldn't be used without the patch, then it should be mentioned in the book. What I don't like about your idea is that a patch could be developed that adds functionality to a package. The maintainer doesn't know anything about it, and essentially it is a mini-fork of his work. But an Editor thinks it is the neatest thing since sliced bread and adds it to the book. I suppose there is just too much subjectiveness involved in that for me. -- 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] 18:22:01 up 121 days, 3:46, 3 users, load average: 1.00, 1.05, 0.85 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
