Re: [blfs-dev] [blfs-book] r10058 - in trunk/BOOK: . introduction/welcome postlfs/editors x/lib
On 05/02/2012 12:58 PM, a...@linuxfromscratch.org wrote: Author: andy Date: 2012-05-02 04:58:33 -0600 (Wed, 02 May 2012) New Revision: 10058 Modified: trunk/BOOK/x/lib/gtk+3.xml Next time discuss before reverting my work, ok? http://www.gtk.org/ it's GTK+, not Gtk ... And since we have two versions, I put GTK+-3 (It could be GTK+ 3 also= ... -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] [blfs-book] r10058 - in trunk/BOOK: . introduction/welcome postlfs/editors x/lib
On Wed, 02 May 2012 12:47:33 +0100 Armin K. kre...@email.com wrote: On 05/02/2012 12:58 PM, a...@linuxfromscratch.org wrote: Author: andy Date: 2012-05-02 04:58:33 -0600 (Wed, 02 May 2012) New Revision: 10058 Modified: trunk/BOOK/x/lib/gtk+3.xml Next time discuss before reverting my work, ok? http://www.gtk.org/ it's GTK+, not Gtk ... And since we have two versions, I put GTK+-3 (It could be GTK+ 3 also= ... Sorry, I was just trying to make it more consistent across the book. Links to the Gtk 2 page show as gtk+-2.24.10 and links to Gtk 3 show as GTK+-3.4.1. It seems inconsistent to have one as ALL CAPITALS and the other as all lower case. We could make them all capitals if you want, but when Bruce brought up the subject of links lately http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/blfs-dev/2012-April/022891.html I got the impression that we agreed that the title should match the package file name And for what it's worth, I wrote the Gtk 3 page. It's not my work as it's part of the book. It belongs to all of us. Andy -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] [blfs-book] r10058 - in trunk/BOOK: . introduction/welcome postlfs/editors x/lib
On 05/02/2012 02:08 PM, Andrew Benton wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2012 12:47:33 +0100 Armin K.kre...@email.com wrote: On 05/02/2012 12:58 PM, a...@linuxfromscratch.org wrote: Author: andy Date: 2012-05-02 04:58:33 -0600 (Wed, 02 May 2012) New Revision: 10058 Modified: trunk/BOOK/x/lib/gtk+3.xml Next time discuss before reverting my work, ok? http://www.gtk.org/ it's GTK+, not Gtk ... And since we have two versions, I put GTK+-3 (It could be GTK+ 3 also= ... Sorry, I was just trying to make it more consistent across the book. Links to the Gtk 2 page show as gtk+-2.24.10 and links to Gtk 3 show as GTK+-3.4.1. It seems inconsistent to have one as ALL CAPITALS and the other as all lower case. We could make them all capitals if you want, but when Bruce brought up the subject of links lately http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/blfs-dev/2012-April/022891.html I got the impression that we agreed that the title should match the package file name http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/gnome/sources/gtk+/3.4/gtk+-3.4.1.tar.xz It's still gtk+3 not gtk 3 (And I prefer to capitalize everything since upstream called it that way). If you set title to the GTK+, then set everything else. I really don't care for GTK+2 ... You could switch them to the same format if it was necesary, but don't revert other people's work (like you did on the cairo page, even tough comment explained everything). And for what it's worth, I wrote the Gtk 3 page. It's not my work as it's part of the book. It belongs to all of us. Andy my work - http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/blfs-book/2012-April/031971.html - check gtk3.xml modifications. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] [blfs-book] r10058 - in trunk/BOOK: . introduction/welcome postlfs/editors x/lib
On Wed, 02 May 2012 13:35:51 +0100 Armin K. kre...@email.com wrote: http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/gnome/sources/gtk+/3.4/gtk+-3.4.1.tar.xz It's still gtk+3 not gtk 3 I'm not bothered one way or the other as long as we're consistent. I think the first letter should be capitalised in the same way that you'd capitalise the name of something, 'cos it is the name of something. What do other people think? Should it be Gtk 3, Gtk+-3 or GTK+-3? (And I prefer to capitalize everything since upstream called it that way). Upstream don't get to decide on the style of BLFS. If you set title to the GTK+, then set everything else. I really don't care for GTK+2 ... You could switch them to the same format if it was necesary, but don't revert other people's work (like you did on the cairo page, even tough comment explained everything). If a page can be improved it should be improved. We can't be afraid of changing a file because it was last edited by someone else. These aren't sacred texts, they're technical documents that should reflect reality. Andy -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] [blfs-book] r10058 - in trunk/BOOK: . introduction/welcome postlfs/editors x/lib
On 05/02/2012 04:06 PM, Andrew Benton wrote: On Wed, 02 May 2012 14:31:44 +0100 Armin K.kre...@email.com wrote: It's still rude. It's like you managed to fully build a house and someone else comes and replaces windows with ones he/she likes. You've lost me. When was I rude? Andy That you've changed the stuff I changed recently for no good reason. That's what's this mail about. It's still Gtk 3, but it should be package name, so Gtk+ 3 should be there at least. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] [blfs-book] r10058 - in trunk/BOOK: . introduction/welcome postlfs/editors x/lib
On 05/02/2012 11:32 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: I can see both sides of the discussion here. If someone works on a section of the book for quite a while, I think it's natural to develop a sense of 'ownership' of that work. I don't think anyone would object if another comes in and corrects a misspelling or md5sum or somthing like that. We should be able to touch up each other's work, but things that would appear to be style are not quite so simple. And sometimes that ownership sticks for a long time! ;-) The easy way out is to ask in advance and offer to make the change. The key is trying to avoid surprises. I agree in principal, but I'll go on record and say that if anybody wants to do something with packages that are historically mineplease speak up and then get to work! I'm thankful that Andy and Fernando teamed up to do LibreOffice. I hate that the book can suffer in any way just because I can't dedicate the time I'd like to. For instance, right now, the previously mentioned OpenJDK changes are probably a month out yet. I wouldn't be the least bit hurt if somebody else wanted to do it faster. I'd certainly appreciate consulting, but it is not necessary. Same thing for Xorg. 7.7 should be out very soon, and I think it could definitely benefit from some style other than that outdated layout I added several years ago. One suggestion, for instance, is to separate out the parts only used for testing the X server (twm, xinit, mesa demos). These aren't part of the katamari nor is Xp which was required for Java. Another, if done correctly, the packages could even be separated out instead of arbitrarily assigning a build number to it (the -2 in 7.6-2). Even though I've recently argued against it, there is some merit to separating the xorg packages. Now, I will continue to argue against adding 200+ pages to the book, but having thought about it a little more, something with the organization of the Python modules page for each section might make a nice compromise. I suggest that we still use the wget and md5 files and a loop, but also provide descriptions and dependencies on the page. I don't have the time or desire to do that, but as it is right now, there is absolutely no documentation on what might or might not be needed. I suspect that many of us just build the whole enchilada, which completely negates the point of separating the packages in the first place. We might as well just write a Makefile with a World target. The fonts are another thing. We probably need only the font-util package and an assortment of TTF fonts now that the legacy packages are gone. -- DJ Lucas -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content, and is believed to be clean. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
