Re: [blfs-dev] Reverting my work
Le 26/02/2014 01:47, Randy McMurchy a écrit : On 2/25/2014 5:26 PM, Armin K. wrote: On 25.2.2014 23:54, Randy McMurchy wrote: Though I strongly disagree with your decision to remove the docs, the more important part of your commit is removing the work done by another editor without discussion. Another editor went to the trouble of adding the instructions to build and install the docs, and you just decide to remove it because you don't use pdf docs. We have seen lot of that lately though and I really feel sorry. I'm not sure what Pierre was thinking. It could be that: 1) He doesn't realize that it was a block of instructions separate from the main body of instructions that readers can just elect not to perform. 2) He doesn't have a laTeX installation so he cannot test the instructions, and simply removed them. 3) He has a bit of dictatorship in him, and is adamant that folks use a browser to view HTML docs. Maybe all three ;-) Seriously, I have had my work reverted (or changed) several times and never said anything. In this case, it was reverted just a few hours after I committed it. I understand that I should have discussed that before, but had no time, because of the hurry in tagging. Furthermore, I have seen a lot of doc generation instructions disappearing (mainly doxygen and pdf) in the past, without anybody complaining. In this special case, docs were still built in .info, .html and .txt style, so it makes a usable package. I am inclined to think that building more is up to the user to figure out how to. Is it the aim of the book to show all possibilities? If so, I think a lot more should be done... In any case, I did not mean to punch anybody in the face. Maybe, when there is more time, we could start a related discussion about having optional instructions in the book not distinct in any way from mandatory ones. As you may remember, I use some kind of automation for testing the book. If optional instruction removing cannot be automated, it takes a lot more time to do it manually. OTOH, if I make scripts for testing the book, I may as well end up testing my scripts rather than what is written in the book. That's the main reason for automation: extracting the current instructions as written in the book, and testing them. If I have to modify manually the generated scripts, I test my work (and it is much more time consuming). Of course, full automation cannot be achieved, and is not desirable, so setting general rules is not easy. Pierre -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] Reverting my work
On 26/02/2014 11:29, Pierre Labastie wrote: Maybe, when there is more time, we could start a related discussion about having optional instructions in the book not distinct in any way from mandatory ones. As you may remember, I use some kind of automation for testing the book. If optional instruction removing cannot be automated, it takes a lot more time to do it manually. OTOH, if I make scripts for testing the book, I may as well end up testing my scripts rather than what is written in the book. That's the main reason for automation: extracting the current instructions as written in the book, and testing them. If I have to modify manually the generated scripts, I test my work (and it is much more time consuming). Of course, full automation cannot be achieved, and is not desirable, so setting general rules is not easy. There is something that is often overlooked that there are individuals who use the book as a reference to get the low down on a individual package. if these are place common distro here users or simply experimenting with the package its a awesome resource. not all readers of the book are builders. its a lot easier reading the xLFS page than wading through configure --help/README/ Greg -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] Reverting my work
Le 26/02/2014 16:54, Gregory H. Nietsky a écrit : On 26/02/2014 11:29, Pierre Labastie wrote: Maybe, when there is more time, we could start a related discussion about having optional instructions in the book not distinct in any way from mandatory ones. As you may remember, I use some kind of automation for testing the book. If optional instruction removing cannot be automated, it takes a lot more time to do it manually. OTOH, if I make scripts for testing the book, I may as well end up testing my scripts rather than what is written in the book. That's the main reason for automation: extracting the current instructions as written in the book, and testing them. If I have to modify manually the generated scripts, I test my work (and it is much more time consuming). Of course, full automation cannot be achieved, and is not desirable, so setting general rules is not easy. There is something that is often overlooked that there are individuals who use the book as a reference to get the low down on a individual package. if these are place common distro here users or simply experimenting with the package its a awesome resource. not all readers of the book are builders. its a lot easier reading the xLFS page than wading through configure --help/README/ Greg I agree that in an ideal world, all the options, and all the ways to build a package could be in the book. But reality is such that it is impossible. Now, where is the limit. I think there is a common agreement that only the recommended instructions are supposed to have been tested by the editor. And there is a lot of testing involved when there is an average of 2 or 3 new versions per day (notwithstanding the extensive testing before a release). So it seems impossible to present more than a few options on a page. Furthermore those may not have been tested. And I think the book is good as a reference if those options show an uncommon way to do things, or a peculiarity specific to the package. Building doxygen docs and/ot alternate formats of the docs is pretty standard, and documented in the autotools. There is no much added value in putting explicitly instructions for that, since a user can easily figure them out. Actually building a 3Gb package (TeXLive) for just testing building docs for a small utility seems just a waste of time. I would not say the same about sendmail (see the other current thread), which has a rather uncommon build and configuration system (I would not say that it's easy, although I think everything is easy once you know it...). Pierre -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] Reverting my work
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 05:54:18PM +0200, Gregory H. Nietsky wrote: There is something that is often overlooked that there are individuals who use the book as a reference to get the low down on a individual package. if these are place common distro here users or simply experimenting with the package its a awesome resource. not all readers of the book are builders. its a lot easier reading the xLFS page than wading through configure --help/README/ All well and good, but only if an editor cares enough to maintain the package. IMHO nobody wished to touch sendmail - partly because having more than one MTA on a system is a problem in itself, so installing a second causes grief, and actually trying to use it enough to be confident that it is properly configured is another matter entirely. ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, dieses Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
[blfs-dev] Reverting my work
Rev 12783 has reverted what I had done for guile. I am curious why: I had suppressed instructions for building pdf docs (using texlive!), and simplified instructions to build and install html and txt doc, but had not changed anything else (I had tested that with a DESTDIR install). It is really curious to insist to put pdf doc installation instructions in the book, which almost nobody will use (you need X and a pdf reader to see them, and by the time you have that, you almost certainly have a browser and can read the html doc). Anyway, all the docs come from the same texinfo files, and building pdf docs is very standard anyway (once you have tex). Furthermore, it seems to me that it is more educational to show how to use the configure machinery to have the doc land into the correct dirs, instead of manually creating those and copying the files into them. Pierre -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] Reverting my work
Pierre Labastie wrote: Rev 12783 has reverted what I had done for guile. I am curious why: I had suppressed instructions for building pdf docs (using texlive!), and simplified instructions to build and install html and txt doc, but had not changed anything else (I had tested that with a DESTDIR install). It is really curious to insist to put pdf doc installation instructions in the book, which almost nobody will use (you need X and a pdf reader to see them, and by the time you have that, you almost certainly have a browser and can read the html doc). Anyway, all the docs come from the same texinfo files, and building pdf docs is very standard anyway (once you have tex). Furthermore, it seems to me that it is more educational to show how to use the configure machinery to have the doc land into the correct dirs, instead of manually creating those and copying the files into them. Oops. That was a mistake. I had made the changes and forgot about them. When I merged, I thought they were compatible. I'll see what I can do about reverting that section. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] Reverting my work
Le 25/02/2014 21:36, Bruce Dubbs a écrit : Pierre Labastie wrote: Rev 12783 has reverted what I had done for guile. I am curious why: I had suppressed instructions for building pdf docs (using texlive!), and simplified instructions to build and install html and txt doc, but had not changed anything else (I had tested that with a DESTDIR install). It is really curious to insist to put pdf doc installation instructions in the book, which almost nobody will use (you need X and a pdf reader to see them, and by the time you have that, you almost certainly have a browser and can read the html doc). Anyway, all the docs come from the same texinfo files, and building pdf docs is very standard anyway (once you have tex). Furthermore, it seems to me that it is more educational to show how to use the configure machinery to have the doc land into the correct dirs, instead of manually creating those and copying the files into them. Oops. That was a mistake. I had made the changes and forgot about them. When I merged, I thought they were compatible. I'll see what I can do about reverting that section. Thanks, sorry for not thinking it could be a mistake. Pierre -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] Reverting my work
Pierre Labastie wrote: Le 25/02/2014 21:36, Bruce Dubbs a écrit : Pierre Labastie wrote: Rev 12783 has reverted what I had done for guile. I am curious why: I had suppressed instructions for building pdf docs (using texlive!), and simplified instructions to build and install html and txt doc, but had not changed anything else (I had tested that with a DESTDIR install). It is really curious to insist to put pdf doc installation instructions in the book, which almost nobody will use (you need X and a pdf reader to see them, and by the time you have that, you almost certainly have a browser and can read the html doc). Anyway, all the docs come from the same texinfo files, and building pdf docs is very standard anyway (once you have tex). Furthermore, it seems to me that it is more educational to show how to use the configure machinery to have the doc land into the correct dirs, instead of manually creating those and copying the files into them. Oops. That was a mistake. I had made the changes and forgot about them. When I merged, I thought they were compatible. I'll see what I can do about reverting that section. Thanks, sorry for not thinking it could be a mistake. Should be fixed now. I did make a couple of minor changes, but nothing substantive. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] Reverting my work
On 2/25/2014 2:20 PM, Pierre Labastie wrote: Rev 12783 has reverted what I had done for guile. I am curious why: I had suppressed instructions for building pdf docs (using texlive!), and simplified instructions to build and install html and txt doc, but had not changed anything else (I had tested that with a DESTDIR install). It is really curious to insist to put pdf doc installation instructions in the book, which almost nobody will use (you need X and a pdf reader to see them, and by the time you have that, you almost certainly have a browser and can read the html doc). Anyway, all the docs come from the same texinfo files, and building pdf docs is very standard anyway (once you have tex). Furthermore, it seems to me that it is more educational to show how to use the configure machinery to have the doc land into the correct dirs, instead of manually creating those and copying the files into them. Though I strongly disagree with your decision to remove the docs, the more important part of your commit is removing the work done by another editor without discussion. Another editor went to the trouble of adding the instructions to build and install the docs, and you just decide to remove it because you don't use pdf docs. Strange indeed! There is a whole slew of places in BLFS where extra docs are created and installed, but you remove the ones from the Guile instructions. You do realize the users have the option of not installing those docs, right? In fact, by removing those instructions you are reverting work that I did long ago. Makes no sense! -- Randy -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] Reverting my work
On 25.2.2014 23:54, Randy McMurchy wrote: Though I strongly disagree with your decision to remove the docs, the more important part of your commit is removing the work done by another editor without discussion. Another editor went to the trouble of adding the instructions to build and install the docs, and you just decide to remove it because you don't use pdf docs. We have seen lot of that lately though and I really feel sorry. Someone wastes the time to get everything to play along as best as possible with everything and then it gots removed/reverted by someone just because I know better (no offense) approach even though sometimes it has been explained why something is like it currently is. I wouldn't complain however if the approach worked for all situations, not just the I use this, everyone should do this instead of Lets try to make everyone happy approach. I did however sometimes remove doc build procedures but only because they didn't work for me (texinfo 5.0 comes to my mind), although they did work for someone else. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] Reverting my work
On 2/25/2014 5:26 PM, Armin K. wrote: On 25.2.2014 23:54, Randy McMurchy wrote: Though I strongly disagree with your decision to remove the docs, the more important part of your commit is removing the work done by another editor without discussion. Another editor went to the trouble of adding the instructions to build and install the docs, and you just decide to remove it because you don't use pdf docs. We have seen lot of that lately though and I really feel sorry. I'm not sure what Pierre was thinking. It could be that: 1) He doesn't realize that it was a block of instructions separate from the main body of instructions that readers can just elect not to perform. 2) He doesn't have a laTeX installation so he cannot test the instructions, and simply removed them. 3) He has a bit of dictatorship in him, and is adamant that folks use a browser to view HTML docs. What galls me the most is that I would never have said anything after I saw the commit removing my work, but then coming on to -dev and complaining that Bruce reverted his work, when in actuality it was Pierre who reverted a previous editor's work. Additionally, the work was deleted and not commented out. Ouch. Like a punch in the face! -- Randy -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
