For 30 years I have been involved in different parts of manufacturing, assemblyline production, machine design and eventually I became a training instructor of CAD software in an engineering department or as an independent contractor/consultant.
Production drawings have revisions all the time but the name/number does not change. Those revision changes are document directly on the drawing in a revision block. Clean, simple less chance for mistakes because the person looking at/reading the drawing has the documented change in front of them. Production drawings are a vital means of communication. If changes were kept some where else, and the potential audience was required to remember to look in another place for changes there would be a lot of big costly mistakes. I appreciate what the team on the LFS project is trying to do but in places it is sloppy and complicated. Most software developers like to take short cuts with their documentation, if they document at all, this can cause confusion for anyone not up to speed with what they are doing. In section 5.21, Gawk-3.1.6, the paragraph starting "Compilation is now complete." should be after the make command. In the same section the sentence that reads "The is necessary..." should read :This is necessary...". The above is found at http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/errata/6.4/ This does not change any software or end user procedure as suggested in the book. It does fix a sloppy mistake in how this part of the book was written. This format follows old technology that can't do it a better way. This is foolish. This is what I was talking about. This has nothing to do with version control that would be necessary to keep things from getting broken and totally messed up. Instead of doing an errata for something as minor as this, just fix the document. This will not require a version number change because this will not alter the process, it will help cut down on confusion. On the download page where the document can be downloaded put a message that says the document link on this page always points to the current version of the book. I am not saying make software changes to the process and then add that to the book with the same release number. Doing process changes does require a version number change. The LFS book is supposed to be about helping people learn how to build their own Linux OS. It appears to be mostly a reference manual with very limited training help for any one new to such a process. It requires the reader to know certain things, nothing wrong with that. If the book is going to tell the reader to do a process then tell all the details of the process don't expect the reader to have to make assumptions as to how to do that process or what was meant. There are a lot of places where the book is not clear. Unfortunately there are some who think one does not deserve help if they don't understand something or they think they are lazy because they don't remember something they read earlier. Some people like to have things in front of them. Some like to keep it all in their head. It is easy for some one who keeps it in their head to remember what they read several pages or chapters earlier but it is not for those who like to have it in front of them. People process information differently. I would like to see the LFS team be a lot more open to suggestions that will help make the entire product (The Book) better. If someone thinks something in the book is clear... don't attack the person that does not think it is clear. Try to understand why they don't think it is clear. Yes, there are situations where it is easy to see when someone is just being lazy. Do those on the LFS team want to help people who want to learn how to build a Linux OS who are: A) below their level of understanding B) at their level of understanding C) above their level of understanding D) All the above E) B and C only -- http://www.wowgreen.net/11324 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
