On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 01:29:25PM +0200, Igor Živković wrote: > On 09/17/2014 04:38 AM, Ken Moffat wrote: > > > >I apparently > >pissed off Igor with my Mesa suggestions, because he only altered > >one part > > You certainly did not piss me off. I thought I've fixed it by using one of > your suggestions. Which other part did I miss? >
I still think there is an inconsistency - you initially changed the upstream fixes patch from Required to Recommended. So we now have two Recommended patches, but the xdemos patch is treated as optional in the instructions, with a separate command, and the upstream fixes are applied without any "if you downloaded" explanation. I agree that the upstream fixes are for people using llvm, and describing them as 'Recommended' is a valid point of view. To me, adding a brief explanation after the upstream fixes patch, such as 'required to use llvm' would explain why you demoted it from 'Required'. But the instruction to apply it is still unconditional, and that is what I think is inconsistent. Also, the instruction to build the demo programs still says "if you have applied the recommended patch, build the demo programs" as if only one patch was recommended. ĸen -- Nanny Ogg usually went to bed early. After all, she was an old lady. Sometimes she went to bed as early as 6 a.m. -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
