2007/12/15, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I can't help but think that something like this would > turn BLFS into just another distro. And an exceptionally > difficult one at that.
I think I disagree with "_just_ another distro". It becomes a "documented distro". > But you don't understand Ag, the package instructions *do* work. Well, maybe. But we don't know that they work, and that's more important (but see below - you say that you rely on general public to report breakage). > We are only providing instructions to build the package. If it > doesn't work after a successful build, we can only hope that a > member of the community lets us know this. If we receive notice > that a package does not *work* as designed, then we'll take an > appropriate action. IMHO, this is slightly inconsistent. What you are trying to say is that we receive such notices via the mailing lists and incorporate them to the book - i.e., we only act as men in the middle between the book and the general public. As the LiveCD development process has shown, this just doesn't work: the NVidia driver version 100.14.11 was first added in r1937 without libwfb.so symlink (i.e., completely broken, but with working alternatives in the form of earlier versions that don't need the symlink). It took two months for this "completely non-working package" bug to be reported, even though I know several people who at that time attempted to build the CD after every SVN commit. But if this "men in the middle" model is really the case, and the development is in fact supposed to be community-driven but not completely self-controlled, then there is a better model: wiki with "approved revisions", like http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Main_Page. -- Alexander E. Patrakov -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
