Matthew Burgess wrote:
the result of running the command was (especially in the case of 'ln')
Do you mean to say that the book would then also show all the to-be expected output?
and b) if they'd made an error. It also, of course, helps greatly when perusing log files. I'm therefore proposing that LFS adopts the same policy. Does anyone have any strong opinions either way?
That would be helpful. It would save the need to ask people to re-run their commands with some added verbosity switch.
Do you propose to add them everywhere? Adding -v options to things like gcc and ld processes would cause for quite a bit of extra output. It may be hard to miss the stuff you are actually looking for (the regular output).
-- Gerard Beekmans /* If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem */ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
