Printed book - remove deps and descriptions?

James Robertson jameswrobertson at
Mon Feb 17 15:11:27 PST 2003

Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> Hey,
> It has totally slipped my mind to update the installation dependencies and 
> package descriptions/contents. There are even a few saying "not checked yet" 
> (like Gawk).
> I don't know what you guys think, but it looks quite bad in the printed book. 
> For the online version I don't care all that much about it, but in the 
> published book.
> The dilemma is: if we remove the sections, the book looses a lot of good 
> educational information. But if we leave it, it's outdated information and 
> seeing the shelf life of a book, it's even worse.
> I'm at an impasse. Any opinions?

If time is of the essence, then I suggest getting rid of the 
dependancies and just use descriptions.  Point the reader to the website 
for furhter information.  When I read the book for the first time, the 
dependancies did not make that much sense, but the descriptions did. 
 From an educational perspecitive, I saw the descriptions as better than 
the dependancies and they were easier to comprehend.  Later, with lots 
of side reading (and watching what was happening on the dev list) I 
figured out more about the dependancies.  The book handles a lot of the 
deps for you just in the way it is designed to be used.  You start at 
the beginning and then go to the end.

My $0.02!

James Robertson | jameswrobertson at
Reg. Linux User: #160424
Reg. LFS User:   #6981

Unsubscribe: send email to listar at
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list