On 9/14/05, Richard A Downing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sorry to go against everything my BLFS editorial colleagues have said, > but I rather like this proposal. > > I think it adds to the educational nature of both books. > > If a device exists and has no rule in the lfs set, then a node is > created with the default permissions. This is good, since the user will > learn, indeed be taught, how to write a rule to achieve their real > objectives. This is far better than giving a rote answer, that may only > be satisfactory in the context of writing BLFS. > > In the cases where the device node must be 'forced' because there is no > /sys entry, then I say we should teach why, not just baldly tel the answer. > > I think the effort to put this into BLFS will be worth it in the long run. >
+1. But perhaps the change should be made after a new release of LFS + BLFS so that BLFS has more time to incorporate the changes. -- Tushar Teredesai mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
