[email protected] wrote these words on 12/01/10 14:11 CST: > Author: ken > Date: 2010-12-01 13:11:29 -0700 (Wed, 01 Dec 2010) > New Revision: 8716 > > Modified: > trunk/BOOK/general.ent > trunk/BOOK/introduction/welcome/changelog.xml > trunk/BOOK/pst/printing/gs.xml > Log: > Fix the ghostscript 'tiger test' on 32-bit systems. > + <para><command>--with-drivers=ALL,x11</command>: here we add the
Just FYI. The BLFS team jointly agreed some time ago that using "we" in the book is ambiguous. Who is we? If your answer is "the BLFS Editing team", then you are speaking for everyone and that is not the case. Additionally, the BLFS Editing team doesn't add anything to the readers commands, the reader is performing the commands, not us. Perhaps better would be "This parameter adds the x11 output device ..." I realize that you are on the other side of the fence as the LFS book does, thinking it adds a sense of closeness to the audience. However, BLFS looked at "we" in a technical document as inappropriate because "we" cannot be defined. It is really picking nits, so it is your call, but I don't think you will find "we" in the book anywhere else (though it very well could have snuck in since the book's last release. -- Randy rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.28] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686] 15:38:00 up 29 days, 22:32, 1 user, load average: 0.22, 0.08, 0.22 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-book FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
