gerard at linuxfromscratch.org
Thu Jan 29 06:55:26 PST 2004
On Thu, 2004-01-29 at 07:40, Bill Maltby, LFS Organizational wrote:
> If we make a concerted effort to make the wiki errata current and useful
> with things such as this, and add emphasis in the book(s) directing the
> user to check the errata area of the wiki, would this meet the need?
> Drawback is that the user needs to check a couple more places to see if
> security (or other issues) require changes from his base book. Also, we
> would need to able to count on somebody to keep the stuff current (can't
> rely on the user because he has no commitment to the project).
I wonder if it's truly a viable solution, an errata.
CVS pretty much *is* the errate. Any bugs found are fixed there, daily
snapshots provided for user convenience. A version specific errata has
its uses but we'll duplicate work but I think we'll just end copy and
pasting from our CVS fix into that errata. Maybe we'll even get to a
point saying in such errate "this issue has come up and has been fixed
in CVS, check www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/cvs/).
I'm not saying this will be, but I can see it happening because it's the
easiest way to do things and often CVS is perfectly usable too at that.
That also brings up the point why not use CVS all the time and even have
a stable release.
/* If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem */
More information about the lfs-dev