On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 20:38:14 -0500 Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote: > > Why? > > > > This person has deviated from the prescribed method of doing things. > > Well, in many ways, that's the motto of LFS, right? Also, why is it > prescribed? Not because it's necessary, otherwise it would be listed > under Required. As Tushar said, usually it represents what the Editor > feels is the best thing. And of course, for most people, it will be > the best thing. I sometimes deviate from things that are 'required' (and sometimes those that are 'recommended'). This is OK, because I don't then ask for support. Experiments are interesting, but they always have a cost. The LFS book says 'build sysVinit', but I almost never do. But there again, I know why. If there was a 'recommended' option in the BLFS book what related to the assumption that sysvinit was in use, then I would probably ignore it - but that would be my risk, and my decision. It's useful (not vital), though, if the editor differentiates between those things that are 'required' and those that are 'recommended', in this sense, for people like me. R. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
