LFS-5.1pre2 space figures (ch6+)
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.
> 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
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
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