jamie at linuxfromscratch.org
Wed Jan 14 12:55:56 PST 2004
On Wed, 2004-01-14 at 19:33, James Robertson wrote:
> Jamie Bennett wrote:
> > I'm not against putting the <stage> wrapper around offending
> > packages but it becomes another note we need to put in the
> > README and a little (very little) more maintainance. If it's
> > of benefit to the actual people would use nALFS on the other
> > hand then maybe it should be there.
> > Anyone else have views on this?
> The patch is designed to fix a known issue. If the book is keeping is
> optional, then we need a way to make it optional as well. What do we do
> in the other options scenarios? Kevin's original idea sounds fine to me
> if that is how we are chosing to handle such things.
From what I can see the patch will be default for the book. See
Jamie Bennett - jamie AT linuxfromscratch DOT org
GnuPG signature - http://www.linuxuk.org/gpgkey.txt
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the alfs-discuss