>On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 12:00:49 -0600 >Bruce Dubbs <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ken Moffat wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 10:51:54AM -0600, Randy McMurchy wrote: > >> If there are no replies (I'm sure > >> Ken will have an opinion), then we'll go with Bruce's suggestion. > >> > > FWIW, for this I think smaller is better. > > Just to add another thought here, if a user wants to actually look at > the changes instead of just blindly applying patches and building, a > large patch, especially one of generated code, would be difficult or > impossible to comprehend. A small patch like you just posted is very > clear as to exactly what is being changed. > > -- Bruce
One other thing: If one uses an automated build method, he (myself) may be disinclined to mess with the $PATH variable. This is regarding DJ's "third patch" idea. Besides, the autostuff should be regarded as a vital part of the system and care should be taken that it always works properly. -- -Aleksandar Kuktin -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
