Chris Staub wrote: > Chris Staub wrote: > >> >> Maybe this goes back to having different definitions of "recommended". >> Just because someone doesn't install something that's "recommended" by >> the book doesn't mean they should be considered to have >> "deviated"...at least that's some peoples' (including me) definition >> of "recommended". > > And yes, I know that there is a definition of "Recommended" in the book > that mentions it's for a "trouble-free build". But, if you going to go > so far as to state that someone who hasn't installed a "Recommended" > dependency has "deviated" and shouldn't bother seeking support, then > that needs to be stated in the book as well,
Support is something that people volunteer. If a volunteer doesn't want to help if the recommendations aren't followed, that is his choice. Sometimes a user doesn't say that the recommendations wern't followed and that can lead a supporter down a path that wastes time and effort. If a user wants to deviate, states what he has done that is different from the book, and someone wants to help, great. The problem is that the whole process is very complicated and we really need to make *some* simplifying assumptions. > and any "Recommended" > package dependencies should state *why* there are "Recommended". This is a reasonable thing to do. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
