Emu wrote:
<snip>
I think that you have mis-understood William's email. From his email, I
gather that he means that the commands set in 1 through 3 should be
stated as 'Compulsory', ie if not used then you have a good chance of
<snip>
> I think as Linux becomes more mainstream, more people are going to try
> LFS for the first time and some people don't know (or understand or even
> don't realise) that a recommendation in the LFS book is something that
> you should do to prevent troubles occurring down the line.
Not at all.. as I said, 'recommended' essentially means 'compulsory' or
at least 'deal with your own problems if something goes wrong by not
following the recommendations.' That's implied in the definition of
recommended as far as I'm concerned.
This is true for anything where there is a recommended action. If I
were to recommend you not jumping out of an airplane from 30,000 feet
without a parachute, I'm pretty sure you'll accept that as a compulsory
action. If you choose not listen, the fact that you become flying goo
when you hit the ground is your own damn fault. But hey, if you can
learn to fly on your way down, that's great; write a hint for the rest
of us. ;)
The point is, the *LFS maintainers cannot be held accountable for people
who cannot follow instructions. The instructions are there and, for
those who read them, they work.
Jeremy.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
