LFS 6.4 Book HTML

genericmaillists at gmail.com genericmaillists at gmail.com
Sun Apr 5 08:45:36 PDT 2009


On Sunday 05 April 2009 10:44:54 Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Simon Geard wrote:
> > On Sat, 2009-04-04 at 14:32 -0700, Jason Erickson wrote:
> >> For the book, it could be 6.4.X where X is the latest version
> >> of the 6.4 book.  Only changes made would be spelling,
> >> grammar, and FTP locations.
> >
> > Makes sense to me... any time you have something that would
> > require an errata page, just change the text instead, and bump
> > the patch level to 6.4.x+1...
>
> Creating even a minor release is quite a bit more work than that.
>  New directories have to be made and populated, tarballs created,
> websites updated, etc.  I'd estimate it to be about a full day's
> work.   I try to automate as much as I can, but there's still a
> lot of manual work to do.
>
> If you want the latest packages, then use -dev.
>
> It's always helpful to actually read the book:
>
> vii. Errata
>
> To check whether the package versions or instructions in this
> release of LFS need any modifications to accommodate security
> vulnerabilities or other bug fixes, please visit
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/errata/6.4/  before
> proceeding with your build.
>
> 3.1. Introduction
>
> Download locations may not always be accessible. If a download
> location has changed since this book was published, Google
> (http://www.google.com/) provides a useful search engine for most
> packages. If this search is unsuccessful, try one of the
> alternative means of downloading discussed at
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/packages.html#packages.
>
>    -- Bruce

You don't need to change the book number just make the changes in 
the book. On the page where the people will download the book just 
warn them to check there for the newest version. This is what other 
major open source developers do. Why do you want to make it 
complicated. You are not empressing any one by doing it the old 
hard way.

To deliberately limit yourself in that manner with a live flowing 
electronic document is just foolish. Why limit your flow of 
communication by following the traditions of an old technology that 
does not have a better choice?

-- 
http://www.wowgreen.net/11324



More information about the lfs-support mailing list