Dan Nicholson wrote: > On 1/21/07, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Randy McMurchy wrote: >>> I suppose I don't understand what you are trying to propose >>> for the PDF links (or why they must be different than the HTML). >> I just downloaded the 6.1 version of the pdf. In page 52 (54th physical >> page): >> >> "Refer to ../../../../lfs/view/stable/chapter07/bootscripts.html for >> more information on the LFS-Bootscripts package." > > When we go to final release, shouldn't we convert to absolute links > anyway? Pointing to the current stable is not necessarily a good idea. > For instance, the 6.1 version of the book should point to LFS-6.1, not > LFS stable, which is 6.2.
Good point. Yes we should. That will keep the older versions of the book consistent as we release newer versions. There are several entities in general.ent that will need to be changed with the release: <!ENTITY blfs-version "svn"> <!-- svn|[release #] --> <!ENTITY lfs-version "stable"> <!-- version|stable|testing|unstable| development] --> Are testing/unstable/development valid options any more? <!ENTITY downloads-root "http://www.&lfs-domainname;/blfs/downloads/svn";> <!ENTITY sources-anduin-http "http://anduin.&lfs-domainname;/sources/BLFS/svn";> <!ENTITY sources-anduin-ftp "ftp://anduin.&lfs-domainname;/BLFS/svn";> Should we replace the last three entities svn entry with &blfs-version; ? -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
