El Jueves, 4 de Mayo de 2006 02:42, Archaic escribió:
> jhalfs was discussed in dozens of threads a long time ago. What you are
> arguing against is a method to test the book directly from it's XML.
And that was one of the goals listed in the specifications when the work on
the newxml format was discussed three years ago ;-)
> That is extremely powerful. And if it is the MD5s you don't like, I
> cannot understand that, either. It is common (and recommended) practice
> to verify checksums. I would hope before any md5 is added to the book
> that the dev who is adding it has checked it against the upstream
> checksum file (if it exists). But many upstream packages don't have
> md5's. For that reason alone, I think the book should have them. The
> rest are for convenience.
I must to add that that the MD5SUMS discussion are jump now due jhalfs, but
actually it is a technical and editorial issue.
BLFS has proved that to include direct download links plus the MD5SUM for each
package is a good thing for our final readers/users. LFS book was the last
one to include direct downloads links. I think that now is the time for
{C,H}LFS books to start including also the MD5SUMS.
--
Manuel Canales Esparcia
Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org
LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com
TLDP-ES: http://es.tldp.org
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
