Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 12/19/05 13:36 CST: > The editor who writes it up. :)
And then subject to change every time a different Editor updates the package. Yuck. Just what we need, changes in what is recommended, even though the package didn't fundamentally change. Can you say 'inconsistent'. :-) > BLFS has several places where we present recommendations. Every place > we have --prefix, we are fundamentally making a recommendation because > that is not where the developers put the files by default. You are making reference to something that is governed by policy. It is already documented why and when we use --prefix=/usr and --prefix=/opt/something. There is no opinion or emotions affecting this decision. It was what was decided by the community long ago and if there will ever be a change to this policy, I would hope it would be discussed within the community before implemented. Editorial: I suppose what is nagging at me the most about this topic of Editors having authority to decide what should or should not be recommended is the fact that you've flat out said things don't have to be discussed. The Editor just does it, and if something isn't well received by the community, to then open a discussion. But history has shown that un-implementing something does not always happen. It is much more difficult to undo, than it is to discuss in the first place and then implement. I remember long ago, when a couple of Editors (one being "The Editor" at the time) told me, "there really is no difference in the roles you and I have other than I have commit privileges." I always took that as the Editors only implement what the community as a whole (democratically, when there were conflicts within the community) desired. If a fundamental change was desired for a package, it would be discussed before being implemented. This was always my understanding. Was I mistaken? Or has there been a slow gradual move to bestow carte blanche authority to the Editors? (Understand that I realize, and agree with, the notion that Editors have been given the role of Editor because they demonstrated ability and good judgment. The good judgment part being critical to the current topic of discussion. We must respect that the Editors of the various books are doing their best to fulfill the wishes of the community, but how are those wishes determined if discussion of changes isn't required?) -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 13:39:00 up 85 days, 23:03, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.01, 0.18 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
