On 3 September 2017 at 22:24, Ken Moffat <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 > -- > OK, for some reason this minor issue appears to be getting completely out of control. Let me attempt to defuse the situation:- 1. How the web page is formatted is of no real importance to me, practically, one way or the other. 2. My initial point was about an omission which Bruce rectified (thank you Bruce). 3. My input is more of a question than a demand: why has the established format changed when, in my opinion, the original layout was so much better (reasons and examples given earlier)? I thought that was a helpful suggestion in order to improve the appearance of the book in some small way. 4. Bruce, I fail to see why I am being unreasonable. I'm not demanding a format that only I want. I'm asking why it was changed from the original and, in my opinion, better format. I did not design the original format, I'm merely directing attention to it and asking why it was changed. I don't believe that the change was thought through and measured, but rather happened on an ad hoc basis. 5. I have changed my script; it was trivial. That's not an issue. 6. Bruce, I realise how much work you put into the book, and if you read my earlier post you will have seen that I fully appreciate that, and I have said so. If you think your change to the layout is an improvement then we must leave it there. Personally, I don't, and the amount of work required to revert to the original text layout probably runs into a few minutes. It is just a small amount of text layout, after all. Richard
-- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
