On 09/17/2014 04:33 PM, Ken Moffat wrote:
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 01:29:25PM +0200, Igor Živković wrote:
On 09/17/2014 04:38 AM, Ken Moffat wrote:
I apparently
pissed off Igor with my Mesa suggestions, because he only altered
one part
You certainly did not piss me off. I thought I've fixed it by using one of
your suggestions. Which other part did I miss?
I still think there is an inconsistency - you initially changed the
upstream fixes patch from Required to Recommended. So we now have two
Recommended patches, but the xdemos patch is treated as optional in
the instructions, with a separate command, and the upstream fixes
are applied without any "if you downloaded" explanation.
I agree that the upstream fixes are for people using llvm, and
describing them as 'Recommended' is a valid point of view. To me,
adding a brief explanation after the upstream fixes patch, such as
'required to use llvm' would explain why you demoted it from
'Required'.
Well, there is a note on the Mesa page saying:
"The instructions below assume that elfutils and LLVM are installed. You
will need to modify the instructions if you choose not to install them."
I think that is sufficient and no further separation of commands is
necessary.
But the instruction to apply it is still unconditional, and that is
what I think is inconsistent.
Also, the instruction to build the demo programs still says "if you
have applied the recommended patch, build the demo programs" as if
only one patch was recommended.
Right, I missed that one.
--
Igor Živković
http://www.slashtime.net/
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
