On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 07:08 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote: > This sort of thing is standard practice with all major projects, > and has nothing to do with the medium in which the components > get realized. It has everything to do with quality assurance > and version control.
Actually, I disagree - most projects don't provide errata pages, they provide support releases with the defects fixed, and discourage people from using versions without the fixes. That's pretty much the opposite of what LFS does - we expect them to follow instructions that are known to have problems, and to use a separate errata document to know when they'll run into those problems. If we were *really* following standard practice, we'd be applying the errata changes against the 6.4 book, and putting a 6.4.1 book on the website to replace it. Simon.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
