DJ Lucas wrote: > DJ Lucas wrote: > >> However, it seems to me that if LFS hasn't released say every (insert a >> responsible value here - 6?) months, if there is errata, a new tiny >> release should be made. It's not like it takes all that much to modify >> a released book from it's own svn branch--I mean all the hard work is >> done already. Proofreading, testing, instruction verification, test >> suite results, SBU timings, etc. should still be good. > > Open mouth, insert foot... That was a totally ignorant response on my > part. My apologies to Bruce, Matt, and all previous release managers > and support staff. Yet again, I've spoken before thinking. What I > should have said is "From an editor's POV, it's almost done." I have > absolutely no idea how much work goes into updating the website, writing > a release announcement, setting up source and patch directories, > subversion tags, mirroring, and all the other fine details that I'm sure > I've missed. I suspect it is difficult (to say the least) to get all of > that work done and not miss anything. Just the number of tasks > alone...jeez. Again, I am very sorry for my short sighted response, > and very much appreciate the hard work from our release > managers/coordinators.
LOL. Actually, I don't see any reason to not add errata to the website. Section vii of the stable book says to check for errata. The bootscripts could be added as a new package and referenced in the errata in the website. Just update the LFS devel book's bootscripts reference and I can update the web site's errata page to say to use the more recent bootscripts package. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
