On 3/23/07, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dan Nicholson wrote: > > > 1. We shouldn't always point to the svn version. When a stable book is > > released, it should probably point to the stable version of the BLFS > > book. Although, there could be a time lapse where this could be a bad > > idea, i.e. LFS-6.2 + BLFS-6.1. Still, if someone's following the > > stable LFS book, they probably don't want to get forwarded into the > > development version of BLFS. > > They may think they don't, but they probably do. The -dev version of > the book is appropriate until the corresponding version of blfs is > released. In the last cycle, that took quite a long time. As a rule of > thumb, when using lfs-x.y, use blfs-dev until blfs-x.y is released.
True, but there should be a middle ground there. If you're doing you're first LFS and you wisely picked the stable book, you'd get plopped into the -dev BLFS book with no knowledge whatsoever about where it stands in it's development history. Maybe it's a good time like after LFS-6.2 was released, or maybe it's right now and you're about to be thrown a wave a cairo/gtk updates. > Currently, there is no way to go back and change released books. The > only alternative is to use the errata page. Right. > One way I can think of is to point to a pseudo blfs on the web site and > use appropriate symbolic links to the right pages. Initially they would > point to -dev and then would be changed to point to the appropriate > version ov blfs when that is released. Maybe view/lfs-compat? This could be a good compromise and would save us having to do things like write "Warning: Don't use the BLFS stable book anymore!" on the web page. All it would take is a change of a symlink at LFS release time. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
