LFS-5.1pre2 space figures (ch6+)

Ken Moffat ken at kenmoffat.uklinux.net
Sun May 9 04:17:26 PDT 2004

On Sun, 9 May 2004, Matthew Burgess wrote:

> > My editorial judgement tells me that consistency is more important
> > here than nit-picking accuracy - it is after all only a guide.
> To this end, I think I've decided to use the following conventions:
> For packages >= 1MB we'll use whole MB measurements
> For packages < 1MB we'll use measurements to the nearest .1 MB
> This way all sizes are specified in MBs to maintain consistency.

 Sounds fine.

> Not wanting to start any flamewars, but should we be using the MB symbol
> in this case, or should we bow down to the IEC's SI standard, which
> specifies MiB for binary measurements? (see
> http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html)

 Now that somebody has stated the conventions, maybe leaving them as MB
isn't too much of a sin.  Saves lots of "what's a MiB ?" questions.
OTOH, standards are standards so changing to MiB is clearly the right
thing to do.  Maybe bloat the book by adding the above reference
somewhere ?

 The bigger questions are will BLFS do the same thing, and since this is
such a /minor/ change, have we got time for the inevitable heated
discussion before 5.1 is released ? ;-)

 das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list