Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 01/30/06 16:15 CST:
>
>
>>>chmod 755 blfsyestest1
>>
>> blfs-yes-test1 (readability)
>
>
> Boy, I bet you *hate* the KDE program names. Notice that when they
> *do* manage to split the names up a tad for readability, they use
>
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 01/30/06 16:15 CST:
>>chmod 755 blfsyestest1
>
> blfs-yes-test1 (readability)
Boy, I bet you *hate* the KDE program names. Notice that when they
*do* manage to split the names up a tad for readability, they use
underscores instead of hyphens, which I k
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 01/30/06 16:15 CST:
> [snip all]
Thanks for the pointers, Bruce. You obviously read it very carefully,
and really didn't expose anything other than some semantical changes.
I committed it earlier, but will go back and fix the things you
pointed out.
I especially l
Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
>
> Automated Building Procedures (sect2 header)
>
> There are times when automating the building of a package can come in
> handy. Everyone has their own reasons for wanting to automate building,
>
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 01/29/06 18:49 CST:
> [snip all]
Here is an update. Please, if you have a few minutes, check for grammar
but really check for technical accuracy. I would appreciate any
comments. I feel pretty good about it, and this time I'm finished, but
much has been added an
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Randy McMurchy wrote:
I like that. Except I was so tempted to use "we" in my earlier text,
but reworded to avoid it. Would you mind if I did?
As long as its not overdone, no. The reader should understand that the
'we' means the collecive editors/authors of the book
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 18:49:21 -0600
Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Please, all, tear
> it apart and let me know where it needs fixing.
I like it. Apart from the personal touches, of course. Does 'Cool,
huh?' translate into Russian, Chinese, English? Perhaps
'Impressive, don't you th
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 01/29/06 20:03 CST:
> What educational value does this new section add to the book, to me
> it looks like it could be a support nightmare for BLFS.
In answer to your question I'll say, "I'm not sure". However, I'd bet
many see educational benefit. Sorry you d
Randy,
What educational value does this new section add to the book, to me
it looks like it could be a support nightmare for BLFS.
--
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
LFS User # 2577
Registered Linux User # 299986
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> I like that. Except I was so tempted to use "we" in my earlier text,
> but reworded to avoid it. Would you mind if I did?
As long as its not overdone, no. The reader should understand that the
'we' means the collecive editors/authors of the book.
>>We might want to work
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 01/29/06 19:22 CST:
> s/Cool, huh?//
Yeah, I know. So much for my spewing about technical writing and not
letting personal opinion enter the text.
> Finally, we would like to remind you that there are a lot of ways to
> script commands. There is not a single 'c
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Looks good, but see below.
> Start Text
> ===
>
> There are times when automating the building of a package can come in handy.
> Everybody has their own reasons for wanting to automate building, and
> e
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 01/29/06 18:49 CST:
> First, create a small bash script by entering the following commands:
>
> cat > blfsyestest << "EOF"
> #!/bin/bash
>
> [snip most of script]
> echo -e \\n\\n$A_STRING \\n\\n
> chmod 755 blfsyestest
> EOF
Yes, the EOF is in the wrong spot
13 matches
Mail list logo
