Thanks for your help, Tanyi On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 5:05 PM, Armin K. <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 >
-- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
