DJ Lucas wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean here. Do you just want to fix trunk's
Makefile to support the revision= attributes and stop updating the
systemd branch? That would certainly be easier from my point of view.
Yes, rather than work in a branch and keep three sets of source in sync, I
figure we make the change for Makefile (and for jhalfs if necessary). Add
the entities to add -systemd to title, editorial staff if we even separate
it (I'd rather not for BLFS), etc. Development continues as it always has
for both branches. Doug and I (and anybody else who would like to assist)
can gradually copy systemd specific bits into trunk (without affecting
SysV), and when we all feel it's ready, change the nightly scripts to use
the merged source. Technical changes continue to occur in the systemd
branch as they always have and then merge to trunk (preferably at the same
time). The merging itself is ultimately editorial work, not usually very
technical, so likely to come in large bursts of activity, much like the
reverse has been over the past few months.
OK, I've committed the changes to the Makefile to support the merge. I
checked the daily update script for trunk and it is good, so just start
adding revision= attributes and it should still be good.
We still will generate the systemd book from the branch for a while so
updates to both trunk and one branch will be needed until we are ready to
stop using the branch.
There have obviously been some changes since, but I'm kind of liking most
of it after seeing it tonight. The font is nicer on the French page, and
the nav icons are evenly spaced on the French page. Bruce's version
doesn't have the indent or large header that I didn't like, and is left
justified. There is an issue with the header being indented in portrait
mode on Android Chrome when viewing Bruce's render as well. I think this
was pretty close when Bruce and Ken last left off. I'd like to revisit
the
css3 changes. Too much at once I know, but that presentation is really
nice!
We can keep it in mind. Depending on how the BLFS merge goes, we might
want to do it before the next release. The scheduled package freeze for
that is in about 10 weeks (mid August), but the exact day will depend on
what packages are pending from upstream.
I'd suggest taking again the changes from www.fr..., as they are now,
since that seems to have less visual anomalies in my quick view last
night, and then see how we look with Ken's previous checks. Then make
modifications for indentation/justification/font/margins if appropriate.
Not sure how old of a browser should be supported, is there no fallback
method for older browsers that don't support CSS3? But again, what we have
now works fine, so no priority. I was just excited, and rather animated,
when I had seen how well it worked on the FR page -- even after Google
Translate had done it's work. I was actually just trying to gauge how much
additional work was created for the FR team (my French is basically
non-existent). Anyway, it certainly goes a long way to modernizing the
look of the online book.
I believe all the changes needed would be in ./stylesheets/lfs-xsl/lfs.css
but let's look at that AFTER we are happy with the BLFS merge.
The lfs.css files for LFS and BLFS are almost identical (7 lines in LFS
not in BLFS) and probably should be identical. The changes we are making
for the merge are transparent to users, but the css is not. We need to
get user input for major css changes.
-- Bruce
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
