Jim Gifford wrote:
I'm really embarrassed you would agree with this Bruce. This goes
against all the principles that have been in place with LFS since day
one. By using the scripted method a lot of things get missed, the text
in the book. Now granted it pulls from the XML, but still nothing ca
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
I agree with you Dan. The way to test the instructions is via a
scripted method. However, the text needs to be checked for consistency
with the instructions and that is as important as the instructions.
When given a choice, take both.
-- Bruce
I'm really embarrassed
El Lunes, 10 de Julio de 2006 04:24, Dan Nicholson escribió:
> Very quickly, here are some relevant links and locations if you want
> to try jhalfs. It won't take long to get familiarized with the tools.
> If you find anything you think is a bug, please report to
> alfs-discuss. George and Manuel
El Lunes, 10 de Julio de 2006 19:49, Bruce Dubbs escribió:
> I agree with you Dan. The way to test the instructions is via a
> scripted method. However, the text needs to be checked for consistency
> with the instructions and that is as important as the instructions.
>
> When given a choice, tak
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 7/9/06, Jim Gifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Dan,
>> I have to disagree with you on this. The testing should be done by
>> hand not by a script. That takes the educational value our and plus
>> gives a lot of false positives during a release cycle.
>
> Something
On 7/9/06, Jim Gifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dan,
I have to disagree with you on this. The testing should be done by
hand not by a script. That takes the educational value our and plus
gives a lot of false positives during a release cycle.
Something else I thought about later. Testing
On Sun, Jul 09, at 07:22 Jim Gifford wrote:
>I have to disagree with you on this. The testing should be done by
> hand not by a script. That takes the educational value our and plus
> gives a lot of false positives during a release cycle.
Sorry to leave my cave for a second but I have also t
On 7/9/06, Jim Gifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dan,
I have to disagree with you on this. The testing should be done by
hand not by a script. That takes the educational value our and plus
gives a lot of false positives during a release cycle.
You have a point. I will prepend me request to
Dan,
I have to disagree with you on this. The testing should be done by
hand not by a script. That takes the educational value our and plus
gives a lot of false positives during a release cycle.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Now that Bruce has been assigned as the release manager, we can
hopefully move forward towards a release. With that in mind, I would
like to suggest that anyone who plans on testing for the upcoming
release use jhalfs to build.
The reason is that jhalfs is the ultimate testing tool for the LFS
bo
10 matches
Mail list logo
