Randy McMurchy randy at linuxfromscratch.org
Sat Dec 15 05:55:43 PST 2007

Ag. D. Hatzimanikas wrote:

> Yes thats the truth.
> Example one. I spend much of my time yesterday to check the pdf generation in
> mutt.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, Ag. We Editors try to
work out the kinks and then document our results. What "example"
is portrayed above? That you had to work out a minor kink in
the PDF generation and document your findings?

That is expected and very normal in the course of package
updates. I wouldn't expect anything less.

> Example two. I didn't check the --enable-exhaustive-tests in flac, when
> --disable-thorough-tests took me 8 sbu to complete thus the text in the
> flac page about "up to 300 SBUs) and use about 375 MB of disk space" is 
> inaccurate.

In my opinion you should have reconsidered updating the package
if you can't test what is documented in the book. There are many
alternatives, 1) actually perform the tests (before retiring one
night perhaps), or 2) ask on-list if anyone can confirm what is
documented in the book, or 3) update the book to say that particular
test was not tested for this version of the package (but that would
just look as though the Editor was lazy, or 4) some other method you
can think up that would convey the information.


More information about the blfs-dev mailing list