LFS 6.4 Book HTML
genericmaillists at gmail.com
genericmaillists at gmail.com
Mon Apr 6 13:54:09 PDT 2009
For 30 years I have been involved in different parts of
manufacturing, assemblyline production, machine design and
eventually I became a training instructor of CAD software in an
engineering department or as an independent contractor/consultant.
Production drawings have revisions all the time but the name/number
does not change. Those revision changes are document directly on
the drawing in a revision block. Clean, simple less chance for
mistakes because the person looking at/reading the drawing has the
documented change in front of them. Production drawings are a vital
means of communication. If changes were kept some where else, and
the potential audience was required to remember to look in another
place for changes there would be a lot of big costly mistakes.
I appreciate what the team on the LFS project is trying to do but in
places it is sloppy and complicated. Most software developers like
to take short cuts with their documentation, if they document at
all, this can cause confusion for anyone not up to speed with what
they are doing.
In section 5.21, Gawk-3.1.6, the paragraph starting "Compilation is
now complete." should be after the make command.
In the same section the sentence that reads "The is necessary..."
should read :This is necessary...".
The above is found at
This does not change any software or end user procedure as suggested
in the book. It does fix a sloppy mistake in how this part of the
book was written.
This format follows old technology that can't do it a better way.
This is foolish. This is what I was talking about. This has nothing
to do with version control that would be necessary to keep things
from getting broken and totally messed up.
Instead of doing an errata for something as minor as this, just fix
the document. This will not require a version number change because
this will not alter the process, it will help cut down on
On the download page where the document can be downloaded put a
message that says the document link on this page always points to
the current version of the book.
I am not saying make software changes to the process and then add
that to the book with the same release number. Doing process
changes does require a version number change.
The LFS book is supposed to be about helping people learn how to
build their own Linux OS. It appears to be mostly a reference
manual with very limited training help for any one new to such a
process. It requires the reader to know certain things, nothing
wrong with that. If the book is going to tell the reader to do a
process then tell all the details of the process don't expect the
reader to have to make assumptions as to how to do that process or
what was meant.
There are a lot of places where the book is not clear. Unfortunately
there are some who think one does not deserve help if they don't
understand something or they think they are lazy because they don't
remember something they read earlier. Some people like to have
things in front of them. Some like to keep it all in their head. It
is easy for some one who keeps it in their head to remember what
they read several pages or chapters earlier but it is not for those
who like to have it in front of them. People process information
I would like to see the LFS team be a lot more open to suggestions
that will help make the entire product (The Book) better.
If someone thinks something in the book is clear... don't attack the
person that does not think it is clear. Try to understand why they
don't think it is clear. Yes, there are situations where it is easy
to see when someone is just being lazy.
Do those on the LFS team want to help people who want to learn how
to build a Linux OS who are:
A) below their level of understanding
B) at their level of understanding
C) above their level of understanding
D) All the above
E) B and C only
More information about the lfs-support