Ag. D. Hatzimanikas wrote: > Yes thats the truth. > Example one. I spend much of my time yesterday to check the pdf generation in > mutt.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say, Ag. We Editors try to work out the kinks and then document our results. What "example" is portrayed above? That you had to work out a minor kink in the PDF generation and document your findings? That is expected and very normal in the course of package updates. I wouldn't expect anything less. > Example two. I didn't check the --enable-exhaustive-tests in flac, when > --disable-thorough-tests took me 8 sbu to complete thus the text in the > flac page about "up to 300 SBUs) and use about 375 MB of disk space" is > inaccurate. In my opinion you should have reconsidered updating the package if you can't test what is documented in the book. There are many alternatives, 1) actually perform the tests (before retiring one night perhaps), or 2) ask on-list if anyone can confirm what is documented in the book, or 3) update the book to say that particular test was not tested for this version of the package (but that would just look as though the Editor was lazy, or 4) some other method you can think up that would convey the information. -- Randy -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
