LFS and BLFS
randy at linuxfromscratch.org
Sat Dec 15 13:20:37 PST 2007
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On Dec 15, 2007 5:55 AM, Randy McMurchy <randy at linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:
>> Ag. D. Hatzimanikas wrote:
>>> Yes thats the truth.
>>> Example one. I spend much of my time yesterday to check the pdf generation in
>> 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.
> I tend to agree with Ag on this one, and I think it's something that
> makes being a BLFS editor difficult.
After re-reading my message, I wish now I had worded it
differently. I should have said it doesn't surprise me
that Ag went to such trouble. As you mention later, Dan,
expectation is indeed a stifling point. I really never
thought about that before.
> To do the update of Mutt, a
> package that Ag knows inside and out, he had to spend hours installing
> documentation packages for a feature he doesn't care about. I would
> much rather have him get the update in for the path he took and let
> the options work themselves out as others who actually care about
> those parts update them.
Agreed. We should go forward with this objective in mind.
> This actually seems to be basically in line
> with something you mention in a later reply:
> On Dec 15, 2007 9:08 AM, Randy McMurchy <randy at linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:
>> But you don't understand Ag, the package instructions *do* work.
>> We are only providing instructions to build the package. If it
>> doesn't work after a successful build, we can only hope that a
>> member of the community lets us know this. If we receive notice
>> that a package does not *work* as designed, then we'll take an
>> appropriate action.
> The current expectation of BLFS editors is that you have exhausted and
> documented all possible options before committing any changes. I would
> really like to change that expectation.
As do I. I don't want to stifle development. I'm not sure how
it ever got to that point that we expect such perfection. Yes,
I'm detail oriented, but that doesn't mean everyone else must
be as well.
> Since we're talking about the
> development book, I'd much rather see the update happen or the bug
> fixed before I'm confident all roads have been explored. If Alexander
> doesn't want to use HAL in his XFCE because it borks his mount
> options, I don't think that should stop him from updating XFCE.
Agreed, I mentioned this in an earlier message.
> I think this expectation stagnates development and is at odds with the
> idea of bringing on new editors with less responsibilities. I also
> think it works against being a community.
> [snip the remainder of Dan's fine comments]
Again, I agree with everything you say. Let's see if we
can't go forward with these things in mind. Thanks for
the comments, Dan.
More information about the blfs-dev