Roadmap update

Billy O'Connor billyoc at
Thu Jan 29 07:00:09 PST 2004

"Bill Maltby, LFS Organizational" <bill at> writes:

>> But we still recommend that people use the stable version of the
>> book, so what does it matter if we have a "one off" version from cvs
>> that has some update or other?  IOW, the "responsible" version of the
>> book wouldn't be recommended for use, what good does that do us?
> Maybe this can be addressed with a slightly different tack? There were
> suggestions in the past about use of the wiki for errata. ISTM that
> security issues *do* justify a point release, but that has effects we
> would like to avoid (work load and related activities being driven by
> asynchronous events may ruin any attempts at scheduling and sticking to
> the roadmap).
> 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).

This "concerted effort" sounds like more work than a point release,
not to mention the fact that wiki's aren't trustworthy enough for
security update information.  Also, this puts the onus on the reader
to check the wiki for errata, may as well tell people to check the
cvs version of the book if that's the case.

LFS Unassigned

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list