On 17.1.2018. 16:49, Bruce Dubbs 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
And I believe the real reason it was changed because n/a broke some
package build, possibly OpenJDK or something that depends on it.
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
