Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 04/13/06 13:01 CST: > On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 12:48:23PM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote: >> Shouldn't this have been discussed first? > > It was discussed - on the same list where you spotted the commit.
Things pertaining to the development of the LFS book are now being discussed on -book? This is new. The mailing list descriptions should be changed to reflect this. And, FWIW, we'll just have to A2D that it is okay and doesn't break the BLFS book. This change effectively make BDB optional. The phrasing says "if you would rather ...., then do this instead". This is optional, and to the average reader/builder would never in a million years give an indication that she has deviated from the LFS book. It breaks BLFS, plain and simple. :-( -- Randy rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.28] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686] 13:04:01 up 19 days, 41 min, 2 users, load average: 1.86, 0.97, 0.48 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
