Thank you for the clarification. Tanyi On Jan 17, 2018 4:49 PM, "Bruce Dubbs" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Győző Tanyi wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Sorry, if I am asking in wrong place. I've made a little thesis about LFS >> 8.0. >> I've built a small LFS/BLFS system successfully. >> >> To defend my thesis I have to answer a question (besides others): >> Before installation of /lsb_release-1.4/, there is a /sed/ command what >> replaces "n/a" to "unavailable" in the /lsb_release/ file. It says: "First >> fix a minor display problem:" >> The question is why is it problem, if I live it with "n/a" value? >> >> I have an idea that if I want to process the lsb_release output with >> another script the slash (/) could cause difficulties. >> >> Is this the reason that it's better if I replace the "n/a" text, or there >> is a more serious one? >> >> Sorry about my English, and thanks for your time, >> > > The term n/a is ambiguous. It can mean not available or not applicable. > Using unavailable is a better word. > > -- Bruce > > >
-- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
