On 3 September 2017 at 19:42, Bruce Dubbs <[email protected]> wrote:
> Richard Melville wrote: > > <dt>LFS 8.1 Release</dt> >> <dt>LFS 8.1-rc2 Release</dt> >> <dt>LFS 8.1-rc1 Release</dt> >> <dt>LFS Stable Version 8.0 Release</dt> >> <dt>LFS 8.0-rc1 Release</dt> >> <dt>LFS Stable Version 7.10 Release</dt> >> <dt>LFS 7.10-rc1 Release</dt> >> <dt>LFS Stable Systemd Version 7.9 Release</dt> >> <dt>LFS 7.9 Stable Release</dt> >> <dt>LFS 7.9-rc2 Release</dt> >> <dt>LFS 7.9-rc1 Release</dt> >> <dt>LFS 7.8 Stable Release</dt> >> <dt>LFS 7.8-rc1 Release</dt> >> <dt>LFS 7.7 Stable Release</dt> >> <dt>LFS 7.7-rc1 Release</dt> >> <dt>LFS 7.6 Stable Release</dt> >> <dt>LFS 7.6-rc1 Release</dt> >> >> Is there any chance of arriving at some consistency? Maybe either: "LFS >> <version number> Stable Release" or, as the latest states: "LFS <version >> number> Release", for those that are not release candidates, obviously. >> > > That file is edited manually. As I said in my earlier message, I updated > it to include 'Stable Version'. > Yes, thanks for that, but if it is edited manually then why cannot the original format of "LFS 8.1 Stable Release" be maintained instead of "LFS Stable Version 8.1 Release"? To me, it's not logical and it's hard to follow. Also, it doesn't follow the existing pattern. Doing it the new way we now have:- LFS Stable Version 8.1 Release LFS 8.1-rc2 Release Wouldn't the following be better and be in line with preceding entries:- LFS 8.1 Stable Release LFS 8.1-rc2 Release I think it looks better, it scans better, it's more easily readable, and it follows the existing pattern. > > You could do something like: > > $ grep 'LFS.*Release' news.html | grep -v rc | \ > > sed -r 's/.*([0-9].[0-9]).*/\1/' > 8.1 > 8.0 > 7.1 > 7.9 > 7.9 > 7.8 > 7.7 > 7.6 > > I could do that, but my suggestion would make that unnecessary. Richard
-- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
