> OK, take a look at http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~bdubbs/lfs-book/
Looked at it and gave it the last few days to think about it some more. I'm a bit conflicted about this but there may be an easy solution to it. No matter what ends up happening, the scripts definitely can be better documented. Adding the scripts to the book as you have done (and how we used to do it in LFS a while back) makes them more easily accessible to review. However it gets very tedious to have to copy and paste them into an actual script. We could still provide the package for installation as we do now. Having them in a chapter or appendix would just be a bonus - we can add extra information that doesn't belong as long winded comments in the actual scripts. Now it brings up the following question. If we add the bootscripts to an appendix, we should do the same with the patches and explain those better as well. That counter-argument could include facts like: patches are really only interesting to programmers whereas bootscripts are important to every linux system admin, programmer and non-programmer alike. Therefore bootscripts are better candidates for such inclusion. I largely agree with that last statement. Just thought I'd bring it up anyway to get it out there. ----- I think the consensus we're trying to reach is what to do with the bootscripts if we do add them back to an Appendix as Bruce suggested. Do we still install the bootscripts the current way or does the appendix become a *replacement* for the bootscript package installation in chapter 7. I think it should be an addition, not a replacement. Gerard -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
