> Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 22:24:25 +0100 > From: Ken Moffat <[email protected]> > > 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,
It's in the first post of the 'thread' (but yes, as noted, the 'thread' gets broken repeatedly: so even tho the subject-line has 'Re: ', it is not always as readily-apparent as it should be, as to where the first post of the 'thread' actually is). > and what the benefits to LFS might be. The much-vaunted educational value could perhaps be enhanced by adding an example of doing-it-right - e.g. per prev post fr akh today re known reliable loc/fmt for rel info, for scripters. > 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. If neither the upstream nor downstream/user/your dtds (or equiv) have changed, then there is no requirement for scripts to change; as, it is then only needing to detect content change. And often dtd/equiv changes necessitate only a fairly simple once-off remapping of structure. > > 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 ? > > ??en, confused why this is important to you '??' indeed. Again, ref orig post in 'thread'. akh -- -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
