I'd like to bring up typography conventions used in the book for discussion.
Right now, we use:
[REPLACED TEXT]
"This format is used to encapsulate text that is not to be typed as seen
or copied-and-pasted."
however, we do not have a notation for optional text.
In most technical publications,
On Sat, Apr 08, 2006 at 06:41:52PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> take a look what happen with lola last night
> http://www.rapidshare.crazydrive.net/logo.gif
>
> haha nice what :D
>
>
>
> --
> http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/hlfs-dev
> FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
El Domingo, 9 de Abril de 2006 02:44, Randy McMurchy escribió:
> Is there any way we can change and move to a versioned directory
> target, so folks a year from now will know which version of stylesheets
> they'll need?
Facts:
-The xsl-stylesheets-current symlink is used only to copy the imag
El Domingo, 9 de Abril de 2006 10:09, Bruce Dubbs escribió:
> Overall, this post is about a detail. Perhaps the proposed changes are
> not worth the effort, but I would like to see them implemented.
>
> Discussion?
A patch will be very welcome ;-)
--
Manuel Canales Esparcia
Usuario de LFS nº28
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
in several sections in Chapter 6, we have notations in the
contents section like:
libasprintf.[a,so]
Now, the square brackets here certainly don't mean replaceable text or
even optional text. I would propose that we use braces in these cases
instead of square brackets to ind
M.Canales.es wrote:
> El Domingo, 9 de Abril de 2006 10:09, Bruce Dubbs escribió:
>
>> Overall, this post is about a detail. Perhaps the proposed changes are
>> not worth the effort, but I would like to see them implemented.
>>
>> Discussion?
>
> A patch will be very welcome ;-)
I can do that,
M.Canales.es wrote:
> El Domingo, 9 de Abril de 2006 02:44, Randy McMurchy escribió:
>
>
>> Is there any way we can change and move to a versioned directory
>> target, so folks a year from now will know which version of stylesheets
>> they'll need?
>
> Facts:
>
> -The xsl-stylesheets-current
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 04/09/06 11:40 CST:
> In BLFS, we created an image/ directory and have the images in SVN.
> That seems like a better way to me. That way the entire book is in SVN
> and is not dependent on any external sources.
My thinking was that those images are part of the st
El Domingo, 9 de Abril de 2006 18:40, Bruce Dubbs escribió:
> In BLFS, we created an image/ directory and have the images in SVN.
> That seems like a better way to me. That way the entire book is in SVN
> and is not dependent on any external sources. If it matters, the files
> are 136K.
I have
On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 06:49:37PM +0200, M.Canales.es wrote:
> I have also that images/ directory in the LFS Spanish translation repository
> from many time ago.
>
> It's my preferred method due that it allow to have cunstomized images if
> dessired.
[snip]
> I'm waiting comments from other
Hey All,
Archaic and I planned to work on getting the udev_update branch merged
into trunk next weekend. I think we were both a little concerned with
how messy the merge might be.
Today I was surprised with a little free time, :) so I took a look at
the updates to see how bad it might be. Sorry i
El Domingo, 9 de Abril de 2006 22:36, Jeremy Huntwork escribió:
> All in all, I don't think it's going to be much of a problem. I merged
> udev_update into my working copy, rendered and created a diff. I would
> appreciate it if a few eyes could take a look and let me know if I've
> missed anythin
El Domingo, 9 de Abril de 2006 22:54, M.Canales.es escribió:
>
> First things noticed. In general.ent "generic-version" and
> "lfs-bootscripts-version" need to be fixed.
Whit the lfs-bootscripts-version fix, the changelog entry for "March 22, 2006"
should be updated.
Remember to "svn add chapte
On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 11:03:27PM +0200, M.Canales.es wrote:
> El Domingo, 9 de Abril de 2006 22:54, M.Canales.es escribió:
>
> >
> > First things noticed. In general.ent "generic-version" and
> > "lfs-bootscripts-version" need to be fixed.
Thanks. I wasn't sure about the bootscripts version - h
Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 04/09/06 16:12 CST:
> Thanks. I wasn't sure about the bootscripts version - have there been
> new, specific bootscripts for the udev branch? And if so, are those
> changes going to be merged to trunk at the same time?
I'm not sure how much was changed, but it
El Domingo, 9 de Abril de 2006 23:20, Randy McMurchy escribió:
> I'm not sure how much was changed, but it seems at a minimum the
> hotplug startup script should be removed. However, I'm sort of like
> you Jeremy, not up to speed with this branch, but it seems the
> bootscript version *must* be up
On 4/9/06, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 11:03:27PM +0200, M.Canales.es wrote:
> > El Domingo, 9 de Abril de 2006 22:54, M.Canales.es escribió:
> >
> > > First things noticed. In general.ent "generic-version" and
> > > "lfs-bootscripts-version" need to be fixe
Jeremy Huntwork([EMAIL PROTECTED])@Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 02:36:34PM -0600:
>
> All in all, I don't think it's going to be much of a problem. I merged
> udev_update into my working copy, rendered and created a diff. I would
> appreciate it if a few eyes could take a look and let me know if I've
> mi
Ag Hatzim wrote these words on 04/09/06 17:56 CST:
> I would like to say,with all the respect ... "Freeze the damn thing and both
> teams
> be ready for a release" :)
Probably working a testing branch for a few weeks, then a beta-1
release, perhaps a beta-2 being required after that, then a rele
Randy McMurchy([EMAIL PROTECTED])@Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 06:06:24PM -0500:
> Ag Hatzim wrote these words on 04/09/06 17:56 CST:
>
> > I would like to say,with all the respect ... "Freeze the damn thing and
> > both teams
> > be ready for a release" :)
>
> Probably working a testing branch for a fe
Ag Hatzim wrote:
> I would like to say,with all the respect ... "Freeze the damn thing and both
> teams
> be ready for a release" :)
I would really like to update glibc and gcc for 6.2. Otherwise we will
be behind the power curve. We don't want to get multiple revisions
behind on these.
--
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Ag Hatzim wrote:
I would like to say,with all the respect ... "Freeze the damn thing and both
teams
be ready for a release" :)
I would really like to update glibc and gcc for 6.2. Otherwise we will
be behind the power curve. We don't want to get multiple revisions
behi
Ag Hatzim wrote:
Also I would like to ask from DJ to have a look in the following bug.
http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/ticket/1680
I'm not sure why this one is directed at me. :-) I've never touched
libusb, but the legacy apps will still require the /proc/bus/usb mount.
This is not a
DJ Lucas wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Ag Hatzim wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I would like to say,with all the respect ... "Freeze the damn thing
>>> and both teams
>>> be ready for a release" :)
>>
>>
>> I would really like to update glibc and gcc for 6.2. Otherwise we will
>> be behind the power curve. We
On 4/9/06, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Just to verify, glibc-2.4 and gcc-4.1 for LFS-6.2?
>
> Yes. I haven't heard of anyone testing these yet, but after the udev
> update, adding them into trunk really wouldn't take long. There is no
> reason that a mid May release couldn't ha
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 4/9/06, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Just to verify, glibc-2.4 and gcc-4.1 for LFS-6.2?
>> Yes. I haven't heard of anyone testing these yet, but after the udev
>> update, adding them into trunk really wouldn't take long. There is no
>> reason that a mid May
M.Canales.es wrote:
> El Domingo, 9 de Abril de 2006 10:09, Bruce Dubbs escribió:
>
>> Overall, this post is about a detail. Perhaps the proposed changes are
>> not worth the effort, but I would like to see them implemented.
>>
>> Discussion?
>
> A patch will be very welcome ;-)
OK, here it is.
27 matches
Mail list logo
