On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 09:19:56PM +0100, Richard Melville wrote:
> On 3 September 2017 at 19:42, Bruce Dubbs <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Richard Melville wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> >>
>
> 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.
I think people might have more sympathy if we could understand why
you do this, and what the benefits to LFS might be. OTOH, we might
not - I have a lot of my own scripting to check if I'm using the
same versions of packages as BLFS, and I frequently have to tweak
those scripts because of changes.
In particular, surely most casual users look for the latest release,
whilst those who are more interested will follow the development
book and know what is happening ?
ĸen, confused why this is important to you
--
Truth, in front of her huge walk-in wardrobe, selected black leather
boots with stiletto heels for such a barefaced truth.
- Unseen Academicals
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
