About the future format for LFS (reworded)
computerperson1 at live.com
Mon Sep 1 14:39:39 PDT 2008
Ken Moffat wrote:
> So far, I've managed without java, and I see absolutely zero reason
> to install it on my machines.
Unforuntaly, we have to put Java as a reqirment here for the validator (JNVDL) and the transformer. (Saxon) You will have to live with that.
> At the moment, you haven't bothered to reply to my questions and
>comments. I have noted that the dynamic book will be able to provide
>different package managers for different users, but I'm still in the
>"I came here because I loathe the overhead of package managers" camp.
I just don't know how to reply to form posts. Just can you tell me?
Also, for the package managament, nobody is about to push you off a cliff and say "USE PACKAGE MANAGEMENT NOW OR ELSE!!!". You have the freedom of choice to use package management or not.
>Who the hell are you to say "this is the way forward" without
>providing argued reasons ? (Valid answers might include "Gerard's
>nominee", or perhaps you have some existing position in the LFS
>projects of which I'm unaware.) If you merely intend to _propose_ a
>change, you _have_to_ provide better justification for it.
This started in a March 2008 post titled "Format for the future of LFS". It has been disscused through the years and I decided to start it back up again.
>What changes does it mean for individual editors?
They have to write some generic non PM and arch-independit files (yes I was thinking of merging CLFS into LFS), and then write PM-spefic instructions, and some archspecif instructions.
>So, how does that help ? When I've made edits, I've never felt the
>need for an element that isn't available. Certainly, I often think
>there are too many elements, but that is because some of the people
>here care more deeply than I do about some of the nuances of how the
>book is rendered - so, the elements I think are not particularly
>important are indeed useful and ought to be retained.
We don't have to remove elements, I just wanted to give a example.
>You refer to the "tired old screen and userinput combo" - where is
>the problem with it ? Maybe you are caught up in the "web 2.0"
It is not a buzzphraze, both screen and userinput are elements, BUT, I can't write 'em in tags because it won't come out properly. We could write a code element that can replase both.
Talk to your Yahoo! Friends via Windows Live Messenger. Find out how.
More information about the lfs-dev