New package installation page format

James Robertson jameswrobertson at
Wed Jan 1 14:00:04 PST 2003

Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> On January 1, 2003 09:18 am, Ian Molton wrote:
>> Well, if it does go this way, can we /please/ avoid the chatty style?
> And go back to a large chunk of copy-n-paste material? That would totally
> defeat the purpose.
> I am convinced this is the best way to go. I back this up by lots of
> other installation guides. They list one or two commands then explain
> the rationale behind it (or first explain then the command to follow,
> which is the same thing). It's a lot easier to understand what's going
> on that way than.
> Anyways I'm not going to defend the reasoning behind it. I've done it
> enough over the last weeks already so this'll be the end of it. We just
> don't agree, and there's no way around it.
> PS: with the new XML format maybe we can work something out that if you
> apply your own stylesheet it'll put all your install commands in one
> section so you can copy-n-paste it again. It's a viable solution so who
> knows.

I agree with Gerard here.  I see the book as more of an educational /
instructional guide than a cut and paste extravaganza.  I was more newbie
the first time I did LFS and I did just copy and paste.  Mostly from not
completely understanding why the pathces we applied, but knowing that it
should work if I did it.  Kind of like when I was taking Differential
Equations in college.  The prof said this is how you do it and when I did
it that way, it worked!  It was later with more instruction that I learned
all the reasons behind the procedures.  The new Glibc page Gerard put
together _explains_ the patch and the process.  Now I understand so much
more about why Greg Schafer has been asking for the second Glibc compile!
Not all readers are programmers or Linux experts and so reading and
understanding what a patch file does is next to impossible to figure out.
The new format does that.  I do not like the cut and paste ability of the
v4.0 book.  Explaining and then doing goes closer to forcing the reader to
_read_ and then _do_.  If you want automated or quick, do nALFS or lfscmd.

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