On 26/02/2014 11:29, Pierre Labastie wrote: > Maybe, when there is more time, we could start a related discussion > about having optional instructions in the book not distinct in any way > from mandatory ones. As you may remember, I use some kind of automation > for testing the book. If optional instruction removing cannot be > automated, it takes a lot more time to do it manually. OTOH, if I make > scripts for testing the book, I may as well end up testing my scripts > rather than what is written in the book. That's the main reason for > automation: extracting the current instructions as written in the book, > and testing them. If I have to modify manually the generated scripts, I > test my work (and it is much more time consuming). > > Of course, full automation cannot be achieved, and is not desirable, so > setting general rules is not easy. There is something that is often overlooked that there are individuals who use the "book" as a reference to get the low down on a individual package. if these are <place common distro here> users or simply experimenting with the package its a awesome resource. not all readers of the book are builders.
its a lot easier reading the xLFS page than wading through configure --help/README/.... Greg -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
