El Sábado, 15 de Abril de 2006 17:42, Archaic escribió:
> I think it should be reverted. Seems kinda silly to have an identical
> link in every package when we can just make a note in the intro
> material.
Agreed. Adding a good note in chapter06/introduction.xml will make that links
redundant.
On Sat, Apr 15, 2006 at 05:05:01PM +0200, M.Canales.es wrote:
>
> - Simplified the appendixc/dependencies.xml tagging, but keeping the same
> look
> that in the previous one.
Looks good.
> - In chapter06 packages files, replaced dependencies list by a link to
> Appendix C. If that isn't wante
M.Canales.es wrote:
Attached a new POC patch with:
- Simplified the appendixc/dependencies.xml tagging, but keeping the same look
that in the previous one.
- In chapter06 packages files, replaced dependencies list by a link to
Appendix C. If that isn't wanted, then the changes to
stylesheet
El Sábado, 15 de Abril de 2006 05:50, Chris Staub escribió:
> Yeah, I also agree it would be good to eliminate that stuff from the
> package installation page, and just put it all in one place. The
> dependency info is useful and important, but it just isn't needed at the
> time a package is being
M.Canales.es wrote:
That is wy I'm ofering a new template.
If that is done, the special tagging in Appendix C required to can point the
package filies XIncludes to the proper place inside Appendix C isn't needed.
We could take away of that {formalpara}s and emty {para}s.
Yeah, I also agre
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Hehe, did you think he meant something like 'piece of crap'? ;D
--
JH
*cough*of course not*cough*
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Chris Staub wrote:
I just now realized what "POC" means. I feel stupid... :p
Hehe, did you think he meant something like 'piece of crap'? ;D
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
El Viernes, 14 de Abril de 2006 17:05, Archaic escribió:
> Actually, I was thinking that pulling anything in was rather wasted
> effort. Why should the individual packages list their deps when the
> exact same info is in the Appendix?
That is wy I'm ofering a new template.
If that is done, the
Chris Staub wrote:
That's the way Manuel's patch is now. What he is saying is to change it
and *remove* that info entirely from each individual package page.
Gotcha. Sounds fine to me. :)
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Un
M.Canales.es wrote:
Right.
Remember that the patch is only a POC. All can be modified if needed.
I just now realized what "POC" means. I feel stupid... :p
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Yes, I think that's the way to go. Have the dependency info only in the
appendix and then each package page pulls the info in.
Agreed with everything else so far.
--
JH
That's the way Manuel's patch is now. What he is saying is to change it
and *remove* that info en
Archaic wrote:
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 10:58:08AM -0400, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Yes, I think that's the way to go. Have the dependency info only in the
appendix and then each package page pulls the info in.
Actually, I was thinking that pulling anything in was rather wasted
effort. Why should
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 10:58:08AM -0400, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
> Yes, I think that's the way to go. Have the dependency info only in the
> appendix and then each package page pulls the info in.
Actually, I was thinking that pulling anything in was rather wasted
effort. Why should the individ
M.Canales.es wrote:
If decided that dependencies info will be removed from packages files and
placed only into that new appendix, then the XML tagging for that appendix
can be simplified a lot, or to change it to use a diferent type of list, or
to use table format or elsewhere.
Yes, I think t
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 04:28:16PM +0200, M.Canales.es wrote:
>
> Say to me if you need a new Appendix C template.
Manuel, so far everyone has been in agreement that they like the look of
it. The only thing mentioned was taking out stuff like notes about being
non-root user. As far as the softwar
El Viernes, 14 de Abril de 2006 16:14, Dan Nicholson escribió:
> Fine work as usual, Chris. Anyway, I think the appendix looks great,
> and I'd prefer to have the deps pulled from the individual pages.
> With the info just in the appendix, you can flesh it out to useful
> lengths. What's on the
On 4/13/06, Chris Staub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> >
> > I do think that the dependencies should be pulled out of the individual
> > packages. No need to duplicate it in Chapter 5 and Chapter 6.
>
> Yeah, I'm starting to think that too.
Fine work as usual, Chris. Anyway, I
El Viernes, 14 de Abril de 2006 07:58, Chris Staub escribió:
> I agree there, although I think that is only in the deps. page because
> Manuel, in creating the patch, was simply copying-and-pasting my
> comments about dependencies I had made in the ticket. Those notes
> certainly should go into th
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be seeing on the installation pages
for Autoconf and Automake. Perhaps the Test Suite depends?
Yeah.
The appendix looks good.
I do think that the dependencies should be pulled out of the individual
packages. No need to duplicate it in Ch
Archaic wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 01:28:43AM -0400, Chris Staub wrote:
>> I have it at http://linuxfromscratch.org/~chris/depsupdate/index.html -
>> look at the installation pages for Autoconf and Automake, and the new
>> "Appendix C".
>
> Appendix C looks great. Is it safe to assume that
Archaic wrote:
Appendix C looks great. Is it safe to assume that the install and test
deps are going to be pulled out of the individual package pages, then?
Well, with that patch as-is, each package still has dependency info in
its installation page. Then again, maybe it would be better to el
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 01:28:43AM -0400, Chris Staub wrote:
>
> I have it at http://linuxfromscratch.org/~chris/depsupdate/index.html -
> look at the installation pages for Autoconf and Automake, and the new
> "Appendix C".
Appendix C looks great. Is it safe to assume that the install and test
Archaic wrote:
On second thought, Manuel's patch, that would put all dependency info
into a single file and have each individual package page link to a
section on the deps. page, seems to look good. I applied it and rendered
the result and I already like it.
He is going to commit that patch s
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 01:18:54AM -0400, Chris Staub wrote:
>
> Mostly I'm just looking for feedback on what that page should look like.
> I can certainly put the actual info in...I'm just not sure how it should
> all look. Is the kind of page I posted earlier (with fewer bulleted
> lists) goo
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
M.Canales.es wrote:
3) Besides getting the udev_update branch in, this info should be one of
the next things to go in so we can finally close
http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/684
Chris, what's the current status? What sort of help do you need to get
this in
El Martes, 11 de Abril de 2006 16:55, Jeremy Huntwork escribió:
> 2) I think the page should be in the Appendix - not everyone will need
> or want to read it. But we should definitely point to it within the main
> text. Have a paragraph somewhere that stresses the importance of the
> build order a
El Martes, 11 de Abril de 2006 16:55, Jeremy Huntwork escribió:
>
> 1) Manuel can you re-send that email? I can't seem to find it right now.
> I might have deleted it accidentally... :/
Searching it ...
> 2) I think the page should be in the Appendix - not everyone will need
> or want to read it
M.Canales.es wrote:
Some days ago I send to Jeremy a patch with XML templates to describe all
that stuff and to add in each package file the testsuite dependencies.
Maybe both you should to work on that together ;-)
Sorry for not replying on this thread before. A few things:
1) Manuel can
Archaic wrote:
> I see now what you are saying and agree. However, this sort of
> information seems most useful to developers and the more
> highly advanced
> readers. Perhaps a note should be placed in chap5's intro linking to
> this advanced information with a caveat that it isn't needed for a
>
Dan Nicholson wrote:
I think it's useful for anyone. The first time I built the book, it
seemed some random collection of utilities (not quite, but you get the
point). If this dependency info had been available I think I would
have been able to understand the connection of the tools a bit bett
On 4/7/06, Archaic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I see now what you are saying and agree. However, this sort of
> information seems most useful to developers and the more highly advanced
> readers. Perhaps a note should be placed in chap5's intro linking to
> this advanced information with a cavea
Archaic wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 01:36:39PM -0400, Chris Staub wrote:
>> Not really. The package installation page just lists what is needed to
>> build that package. The "buildorder" page lists exactly what needs to be
>> built *in a particular order*. The point is to specify that util-l
Uli Fahrenberg wrote:
Archaic, Apr 7, 13:30 -0600:
However, this sort of information seems most useful to developers and
the more highly advanced readers.
it is sort of like an index of knowledge gained and applicable to
development, but not really applicable to following the book to
produc
Archaic, Apr 7, 13:30 -0600:
However, this sort of information seems most useful to developers and
the more highly advanced readers.
it is sort of like an index of knowledge gained and applicable to
development, but not really applicable to following the book to produce
a working system.
C
On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 01:36:39PM -0400, Chris Staub wrote:
>
> Not really. The package installation page just lists what is needed to
> build that package. The "buildorder" page lists exactly what needs to be
> built *in a particular order*. The point is to specify that util-linux
> in Chapte
Archaic wrote:
On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 12:48:29PM -0400, Chris Staub wrote:
I disagree - all such dependencies should be listed regardless of
whether they are accounted for by alphabetical order.
It's starting to sound like you want to duplicate the info in the
individual package pages. I don'
On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 12:48:29PM -0400, Chris Staub wrote:
>
> I disagree - all such dependencies should be listed regardless of
> whether they are accounted for by alphabetical order.
It's starting to sound like you want to duplicate the info in the
individual package pages. I don't agree wit
Chris Staub wrote:
> Chris Staub wrote:
>> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>>
>>> The lists seem a bit too prominent.
>>
>> I don't mind just having a single sentence for listing a couple of
>> dependencies like this, but in a couple instances the list of deps.
>> for a certain package is fairly long. In the c
El Viernes, 7 de Abril de 2006 17:38, Chris Staub escribió:
> I've started working on a page describing the reasoning behind the
> package build order for LFS. Take a look at it here -
> http://linuxfromscratch.org/~chris/lfs-book/chapter05/buildorder.html.
> Any comments - page layout, location, e
Chris Staub wrote:
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
The lists seem a bit too prominent.
I don't mind just having a single sentence for listing a couple of
dependencies like this, but in a couple instances the list of deps. for
a certain package is fairly long. In the case of Coreutils, there are
actuall
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
The lists seem a bit too prominent.
I would reword the paragraphs like Coreutils to something like:
Coreutils must be installed before Bash and Diffutils because they
hard-code Coreutils binary locations.
I don't mind just having a single sentence for listing a couple of
Archaic wrote:
Some preliminary thoughts:
I would probably not go into such detail as if this book is a teaching
aide, the above paragraph would bog down and confuse the reader. Some
lighter, general reading along the lines of:
"Some pkgs have circular deps [insert very light blurb as to
Chris Staub wrote:
> I've started working on a page describing the reasoning behind the
> package build order for LFS. Take a look at it here -
> http://linuxfromscratch.org/~chris/lfs-book/chapter05/buildorder.html.
> Any comments - page layout, location, etc., are welcome. I don't have
> much act
On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 12:25:56PM -0400, Chris Staub wrote:
>
> I'm also updating the dependencies for each package. I think it would be
> a good idea to separate build deps. from testsuite deps. Anyone agree?
Definitely.
--
Archaic
Want control, education, and security from your operating s
Chris Staub wrote:
I've started working on a page describing the reasoning behind the
package build order for LFS. Take a look at it here -
http://linuxfromscratch.org/~chris/lfs-book/chapter05/buildorder.html.
I'm also updating the dependencies for each package. I think it would be
a good i
On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 11:38:46AM -0400, Chris Staub wrote:
> I've started working on a page describing the reasoning behind the
> package build order for LFS. Take a look at it here -
> http://linuxfromscratch.org/~chris/lfs-book/chapter05/buildorder.html.
Some preliminary thoughts:
"Au
46 matches
Mail list logo
