jwrober at linuxfromscratch.org
Wed Jan 14 13:39:51 PST 2004
Jamie Bennett wrote:
> 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
Yep, that was the thread I was thinking of. I should have put it in my
post. Looks like this one may be a no brainer.
More information about the alfs-discuss