On 11 September 2017 at 10:23, Pierre Labastie <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 11/09/2017 10:12, Richard Melville wrote: > > On 9 September 2017 at 16:48, Roger Koehler <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 9:43 AM, Bruce Dubbs <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > Richard Melville wrote: >> >> >> >> On the web page >> >> >> >> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/stable-systemd/chap >> ter01/whatsnew.html >> >> there are further inconsistencies. The following packages: d-bus, >> expat, >> >> gperf, and tcl-core all have a hyphen between the package name and the >> >> version, e.g. "Expat-2.2.3", as one would expect. None of the other >> >> packages listed does, e.g. "File 5.31". It may appear to some to be an >> >> unimportant issue, but it looks sloppy. >> > >> > Seems a little picky, but nevertheless I've updated my sandbox to add >> dashes >> > to all the packages. We will not update the stable book, but the dashes >> > will appear in the -dev book starting with the next commit. >> > > Thanks Bruce, I think that's a big improvement. > >> >> Consistency is good. >> >> I like the dashes because when I build manually following the book, I >> like to copy and paste the package name to use as the filename of my >> log file. It would be nice to not have to add the dashes manually >> (easier to work with than spaces in filenames). >> > > As Roger says, "consistency is good", so, at the risk of appearing to > increase your workload further Bruce, could I again return to the point > that this web page: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/news.html has > recently diverted from the long-running standard of, for example, "LFS 7.9 > Stable Release to one of "LFS Stable Version 7.10 Release". The original > standard reads so much better than the recently adopted change. Surely it > is better to keep the version number adjacent to "LFS" than it is to > shuffle it close to the end of the line. > > Here's another apparently random change. The Development LFS Systemd > book: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/systemd/ > chapter06/dbus.html shows "D-Bus-1.10.22", > > whereas the latest BLFS book http://www.linuxfromscratch. > org/blfs/view/svn/general/dbus.html shows "dbus-1.10.22". Personally, I > prefer the latter style of lower case as it's consistent with the package > download URL of http://dbus.freedesktop.org/releases/dbus/dbus-1.10.22. > tar.gz. However, my point is that there is no consistency. These may > seem like very minor points, but surely, in computing consistency is very > important. > > > Normally, all our titles should use "Title Case". Now the question is what > package names are. For example, SWIG is an acronym (for Simplified Wrapper > and Interface Generator), so should be written all caps. So is GCC (Gnu > Compiler Collection). But what about NASM (Netwide Assembler) or yasm, for > example? We usually rely on upstream way of writing. So we have NASM, and > yasm (but it should be Yasm in titles and at the beginning of a sentence). > Upstream way of writing dbus is D-Bus. But users (at least me, but I guess > others too) looking for it in the table of contents, do not know upstream > way, and look for dbus. They won't find it, even if case matching is > relaxed... > > Yes, that is a problem. > So, yes, consistency is good, but consistency in natural language is not > always possible. And the books are natural language, not programming > language. I can tell you as one of the developer of jhalfs ;-) > Agreed, and you have my sympathy. > > Anyway, what should we do in this case: > - at least LFS and BLFS should be consistent. So the titles should be the > same for the same package in both books. > - If we take our convention of Title Case, and want to have an easily > searchable title, this should be Dbus > - If we prefer upstream usage, this should be D-Bus > Yes, that is a dilemma. > > FWIW, D-Bus was changed to dbus in BLFS on November 27th, 2016, by Bruce... > Thanks for highlighting all the issues Pierre, and the complexities involved; I realise that you have a difficult job. My main problem is that nobody seems to want to discuss the change in format on http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/news.html which seems fairly straightforward. Thanks again. Richard
-- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
