On Sat, Dec 15, at 07:55 Randy McMurchy wrote: > 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?
But it wasn't just a minor kink for me, because I had to install tools that I don't use and find out by grep'ping' log files and Makefiles why JadeTeX didn't provided the desired output. Then I noticed the empty variable, which lead me eventually that DocBook DSSSL Stylesheets was an obligatory package. I should have know that but I didn't, so I've spend much of my time on it. Well I had the option to ignore it, but I didn't for that particularly package, because I care enough about mutt to do that job with pleasure. In contrast I had to update flac -- because out of question there were some very serious vulnerabilities (it was in the headlines for days all over the web) -- so... at first I should have tried to built the xmms plugin (is a package that I don't use because its graphical and because depends to the outdated gtk1 toolkit) and secondly I should have check the --enable-exhaustive-tests switch. Well I didn't check both of the switches, simple because I thought that the update was much more important, than an outdated plugin and a test that was meant mainly for developers. But I was honest enough to report my inaccuracies in the track ticket. Again in contrast, LFS hasn't such dilemmas. They know what they want and they take only what they want. They prefer the su from shadow, they patch coreutils. Instead in BLFS we have to choose from a myriad of choices and configurations that simple is not possible to test them all. And they are 300 of packages and not 50 which all of them under exhaustive testing for years. Thats why I said we should try, either to make the Book more compact, follow a linear build and towards a direction e.g, Gnome or else we should try to find people that will maintain specific programs that they care and use. To update LPRng without to use it actually, is without a question a brave action, you deserve all the credits you can take (I already gave you them), but it's not what I personally like. This is a community project and there is must be someone that uses LPRng. Our job is to find that man and make him to like to update/maintain the package, like Christian did for XFS. If there isn't such a man, then comment out. Much more honest than to claim that the package instructions works. -- http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/wiki/Hacking -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
