On 18 October 2015 at 16:21, Bruce Dubbs <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Given the lack of Cs to my RFC, it seems I might well have >> been the only person so far to compare the books from a >> "text" viewpoint. > > > We've looked at it before -- actually the systemd book was created from the > sysV book, .. I didn't expect anything else. > ... but the remaining issues of order are really meaningless. As in, the order doesn't mean anything? In which case, why not move any of the SysV and systemd packages that CAN come before the "choice" is made, above the "choice", rather than continue with the arbitrary aplhabetical listing of the packages for which order doesn't mean anything? I did take the time to look at the "must be installed before" info to make sure that it wasn't different between the books and so determine that what I was suggesting was at least feasible. If you have two things that are more or less identical, why would you want to suggest that they are any more different than they actually are? I think that a lot of people (OK, make that, a lot of the small number of people who might want to use LFS as an excellent guide to understanding the differences between SysV and systemd) will see the different ordering and assume, because they appreciate that LFS has been well developed and tested, that there is some meaning behind it. I see this as mis-information. > A lot of what you suggest appears to be style. Actually, those weren't MY suggestions for changes: they are changes that have already been made but which have been made inconsistently across the two books. > The systemd book is now edited by a different editor and it is not helpful > to mix suggested changes for the two books. I hear what you say about the different editors now but again, I just think that the consistency would be a good thing. If one of the editors is suggesting a "style change" to a part of "their" book that is actually common to both, then presumably they are doing so because they believe the "substance" will be more correctly understood, because of the change, in which case the change should be made across the two books for the benefit of both of them. > If you want to help, I'd suggest checking out the xml as stated at: ... As I now understand it, if different editors already seemingly disagree on "style" to the extent that the two books are going to differ in style because changes to common sections are going to be made independently, then I can't see that a third person offering their opinion on "style" is really going to help the "substance" all that much. The biggest "substance abuse", so far, is that LFS 7.8 is still using a GMP that contains the issue I discovered and helped the GMP authors to identify and fix when I came across it in LFS 7.7, which seems to be where I came in, and so, having obviously gone around this particular room, I'll exit this issue. Apologies for the noise, Kevin -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
