On 10/26/10 08:32, Neal Murphy wrote: > > Randy, you are correct. The information is all there. It probably works well > for someone with a keen grasp of written English and someone who is already > familiar with the build process. > > But the book is still wrong because it does not clearly and explicitly guide > readers around this stumbling block. And this isn't the only stumbling block > in the book. As a outsider, I see the LFS Team chanting their 'Read the Book' > mantra, users showing up here confused, the LFS Team continuing their > chanting, and users continuing to show up confused. > > There are times when judiciously repeating certain information can be > extremely helpful, especially at locations known to trip people. Judicious > repetition is a solid tool for reinforcing ideas and concepts; it is a tool > that has been used for millenia. So why isn't judicious repetition good > enough for LFS? > > I really don't understand the resistance to changing > "GCC now requires the GMP, MPFR and MPC packages. As these packages > may not be included in your host distribution, they will be built > with GCC:" > to something like > "GCC requires the GMP, MPFR and MPC libraries. Because they may > not be included in your host distribution, they must be built as > part of GCC. Be sure to unpack their tarballs within the GCC > source directory (review chapter 5.3)." > > '... now requires ...'? GCC has required those libraries for a long time; it's > nothing new. Just state that those libraries are required. BTW, GCC requires > the libraries, not the packages. > > '... will be built with GCC'? This evokes two thoughts. (1) "Well, duh! > EVERYTHING gets built with GCC!" (2) "OK; this is automatic; GCC knows how to > do all this." Perhaps this should be reworded (1) to make it much clearer > that those three libraries 'must be built AS PART OF gcc', or 'must be built > INTEGRAL TO gcc', or 'must be built INTO gcc', and (2) to make it clearer > that it's not automatic. > > While '... must be built ...' is not 100% true, it suffices to say they must > be built as part of GCC and eliminates a little room for error. LFS users can > learn the difference at another time. > > Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results each time > is a form of insanity. When LFS users keep stumbling at the same place, > re-phrase that spot and guide them around the problem. Don't just keep > chanting, "Stupid users! RTFB!" ++1 Nolan That is almost the wording of a discussion? I had with my wife last night. Tech people will have a base knowledge to pull from to apply the instructions. Someone who has never lifted the hood as such will not have this background.
quote: Preface-vi. Prerequisites... "In particular, as an absolute minimum, you should already have the ability to use the command line (shell) to copy or move files and directories, list directory and file contents, and change the current directory. It is also expected that you have a reasonable knowledge of using and installing Linux software." I believe I qualify as to those minimum requirements. I started with RedHat-5.1 on a i386 20MHz. And I recompiled the kernel and added programs etc. And yes I still have the RedHat cd in its retail package along with my first computer the i386, that is not counting the Vic 20 before the i386. Nolan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
