Ken Moffat wrote: > So far, I've managed without java, and I see absolutely zero reason > to install it on my machines.
Unforuntaly, we have to put Java as a reqirment here for the validator (JNVDL) and the transformer. (Saxon) You will have to live with that. > At the moment, you haven't bothered to reply to my questions and >comments. I have noted that the dynamic book will be able to provide >different package managers for different users, but I'm still in the >"I came here because I loathe the overhead of package managers" camp. I just don't know how to reply to form posts. Just can you tell me? Also, for the package managament, nobody is about to push you off a cliff and say "USE PACKAGE MANAGEMENT NOW OR ELSE!!!". You have the freedom of choice to use package management or not. >Who the hell are you to say "this is the way forward" without >providing argued reasons ? (Valid answers might include "Gerard's >nominee", or perhaps you have some existing position in the LFS >projects of which I'm unaware.) If you merely intend to _propose_ a >change, you _have_to_ provide better justification for it. This started in a March 2008 post titled "Format for the future of LFS". It has been disscused through the years and I decided to start it back up again. >What changes does it mean for individual editors? They have to write some generic non PM and arch-independit files (yes I was thinking of merging CLFS into LFS), and then write PM-spefic instructions, and some archspecif instructions. >So, how does that help ? When I've made edits, I've never felt the >need for an element that isn't available. Certainly, I often think >there are too many elements, but that is because some of the people >here care more deeply than I do about some of the nuances of how the >book is rendered - so, the elements I think are not particularly >important are indeed useful and ought to be retained. We don't have to remove elements, I just wanted to give a example. >You refer to the "tired old screen and userinput combo" - where is >the problem with it ? Maybe you are caught up in the "web 2.0" >buzzphrases ? It is not a buzzphraze, both screen and userinput are elements, BUT, I can't write 'em in tags because it won't come out properly. We could write a code element that can replase both. _________________________________________________________________ Talk to your Yahoo! Friends via Windows Live Messenger. Find out how. http://www.windowslive.com/explore/messenger?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_messenger_yahoo_082008 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
