On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 11:30:01PM +1300, m...@pc-networking-services.com wrote:
> > Em 23-03-2014 06:15, m...@pc-networking-services.com escreveu:
> >>> On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 01:01:18PM +1300, m...@pc-networking-services.com
> >>> wrote:

> >> When people are TESTING the versions of the book before making them a
> >> release I am having a very hard time believing that what they are doing
> >> to
> >> compile the package and what they have written that they have done are
> >> the
> >> exact same things.  If they were, then someone such as me who is
> >> following
> >> through the written instructions and copying and pasting them exactly
> >> would be able to make it work from a bare hard drive.  This is clearly
> >> not
> >> the case.

 We (the editors) are human - like everybody else, we sometimes make
mistakes.  I think that only Bruce and Pierre use jhalfs to convert
the book's xml into scripts - for me it doesn't work beause my
/sources directory is an nfs mount and I do not want to start
building in it.  In any case, with all the optional deps it is not
practical to cover every possibility.

> I get the point you make Fernando.  I am sorry but I have written
> technical documentation myself for server setups and I guess I have a
> different approach with regards to it.  I am frustrated because I HAVE
> followed the instructions to the letter.
> I do not script ANYTHING if I can avoid it.  I like to see what is going
> on and fix any issues that come up.

 If you are building something more than once, scripting ensures
that you do the same thing each time.  It is also part of the 'nix
tradition - a reach set of commandline tools to help with day-to-day
> My approach to testing technical writing is to do the installation and
> document every step that I have done at the time and after the
> installation is completed, then I expand my notes and put it into proper
> sentences and steps, then I go through the server setup as per my own
> written instructions and make sure that they are correct.
> Sorry for sounding harsh, I am not meaning to be.

 That is, I think, how most of us test additional packages.

> I also notice that the issues I am having are to do with the fact that the
> SYSTEMD version of the BLFS book was taken offline.  I have downloaded the
> svn copy and am trying to get it converted to html so I can see the
> differences.

 I'm surprised that this now appears to be a systemd issue - I had
assumed that all the pain there would be in replacing bootscripts.
But, the links in other posts seem to bear that out.  So, you should
probably look at other distros using systemd - probably fedora and
arch will be your best bets - to see if there is anything relevant
there.  Links in :

das eine Mal als Tragödie, dieses Mal als Farce
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Reply via email to