On July 28, 2017 8:39:29 PM CDT, lfs-guy <[email protected]> wrote:
On 7/28/17 8:38 AM, lfs-guy wrote: >. >> >>> It is confusing when a user is admonished to follow the book exactly, >>> however in the next breath they are criticized for runs tests in Chap. 5. >>> >>> Just my two cents... spend it as you wish. Bruce Dubbs (??): >>The book does say earlier, in Chapter 4, that testsuites in Chapter 5 >>are not recommended, and several of those pages you mentioned reiterate >>this. LFS builders do need to be paying attention to the book's text, >>not just blindly running every command. >Exactly my point - if's not recommended, don't include it. > It is recommended...by the maintainer. We recommend not to run them due to the isolated environment. This is an important distinction that must be realized by the reader. >Numerous posts from other builders across multiple websites clearly >state "Do no deviate from the book". In my mind skipping steps, that >are >specifically listed in highlighted gray sections in the book, would >constitute directly deviating from the book. Yes, IIRC, this is screen only, not screen-userinput. There should be some difference between command blocks and isolated text in your browser. Perhaps we could do something slightly different with the formatting of this informational text, but that's getting dangerously close to handholding, and that's no favor to the reader when they venture beyond LFS. I do think that we should be consistent with the reminder. > >Be consistent. Ambiguity gets no one anywhere, especially those that >are >traversing the first few times. Not entirely true. See below... >Anytime they encounter a complicated >error, the response inevitably is "you haven't followed the book; >include every step and start over". > That's rarely the first response, but it's not an uncommon one. LFS is not easy, nor do we attempt to do more than make the info digestible for those already familiar with building from source. Ability to read, and follow instructions is required. Funny, but this just came up on IRC the other day. I can't speak for every editor, but I would much rather drive away a user early on if they are not quite ready for LFS with an opinion of "It is too hard. Maybe later.", as opposed to wasting a whole lot more of their time setting them up for failure at a much later stage of the book, which tends to yield a much more colorful opinion. :-) In this, use of ambiguity is a tool, sparingly of course. >Experienced builders understand all the innuendos; new builders are >only >looking for the last tree in the forest. Unfortunately, the line between handholding and expectations of competence is fuzzy at even the best of times, a constantly moving target. I'm not sure anything more than being consistent with the reminder is necessary, but all aspects of the book should be given some discussion from time to time to avoid blinders. > >BTW - it's also recommended that you don't bottom post your response to >the list.... LOL Unfortunately, I fear that might not have come across as humor. Try a smiley next time. :-) It is usually best to wait until you have access to a competent mail editor, but we do understand that from time to time it is required to use a poorly written client such as Outlook, especially if something is time sensitive, and will attempt to fix quoting for the sanity of the next reader. There used to be a plugin for Outlook to fix this deficiency. Outlook QuoteFix IIRC. Anyway, just aplogise in advance if you deem it necessary to use a broken client in those rare cases, and most will make an attempt to put in chronological order if context is needed. -- DJ -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
