Archaic wrote:
On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 01:32:49PM -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
I didn't fully proofread yet, but I think it looks great so far. And
you got the ed dependency in. Awesome.
Perhaps what ever needs ed can be converted to sed? It's getting to the
point where only gray beards remember how to use ed. I'm really
surprised xorg-7 requires it.
Well, I was going to try to check on it when I got to build time, but
for now it's there because it is required until there is a change. I'll
be building the libs in about 10 minutes.
Anyway, here's my observations:
Thanks for the thorough review.
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~dj/blfs-x7-temp/x/installing.html
The intro page seems to lack flow. It intermixes xorg vs. xfree with
xorg 6.9 vs xorg 7. The flow of why xorg/xfree should be first and
self-contained, followed with why 6.9/7.0. A note that 6.9's build
process mimics 6.8 might help people make a more informed decision as
well.
I'd have thought the separation of Traditional/Modular build system was
enough, but I'll separate and provide a bit more info about the
monolithic build system.
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~dj/blfs-x7-temp/x/xorg7.html
make &&
make install
if [ $? -ne 0 ]; then
break #stop the build if the previous command failed
fi
cd .. &&
The if/then doesn't make sense to me. I'm guessing you used that because
if any && command fails, bash jumps to the next command that doesn't
have a && (like rm -rf $packagedir) and happily tries to carry on. set
-e should alleviate that and allow all &&'s to be removed, but this is
just a preferential thing.
Honestly, I hadn't even thought of it. In the instructions, I prefer to
use scripts that are self explanatory, or at least until it becomes
difficult to keep it in simple terms. The '&&'s used to be explained in
LFS, but I don't recall seeing that explanation recently.
The if,then,else is self explanatory as it relates to spoken language.
'If $? is not equal to 0 then break out of the loop', 'is $? true or
break out of the loop' (test $? | break), and finally 'it stopped, why?'
(sh -e). The middle one can be a little confusing for newbs (I know not
our target audience). The last is the cleanest as you had suggested,
and is educational so long as a comment is placed at the top to explain
the -e and why the script might stop. I think I'll go with that. Thanks.
On this same page, in the note box: s/likey/likely/
But me likey!
A general note for many of the pages deals with the replaceable tags.
You've provided a path in the tags where <prefix> would be less
confusing.
Good idea. I think I'll use caps to draw even more attention to it. I
don't like the <> vs [] change we've had recently. I do understand why
this was done, I just don't like how it doesn't stand out as much. I
wonder if there is a qnd way to put the gt and lt symbols in bold
instead, that'd help.
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~dj/blfs-x7-temp/x/x-setup.html
This page has a note about xterm, but doesn't mention that you could
instead just remove the xterm command from xinitrc in favor of another
term program (like gnome-terminal or xfce-terminal) installed later.
X is pretty useless at that point without it. You also can't test DRI
at that time without it. I'll add to the note with all three points.
Also, the following sentences are misleading:
<Snip font related concerns>
As discussed later in this thread, Dan is much better versed in this
area. I'll test and make changes tonight for everything above. I can't
guarantee it'll get committed tonight but I'll try to get it done soon.
Dan, if you don't mind, I'd like for you to complete the font
discussion. Your understanding is well above mine here. It looks like
you've taken ownership already, and already have ideas ready to go so
I'll get the changes in let you have it back. :-)
Thanks again guys for jumping in and reviewing.
-- DJ Lucas
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
