At the moment, we have two varieties of tags for past LFS-releases
: built (known to build, but has not been tested), and checked
(builds, and works properly). Am I alone in wondering if there is a
case for something in the middle, such as 'builds, and seems to
work'?

For packages I usually use, I hope I can determine if a package
works properly. For many of the others, I have no idea how to tell
when it is being used. But for some, I can tell that they appear
to work, but with sufficient roughness (e.g. yesterday, accerciser -
traceback error messages in the first tab that opens, and most of the
functions in the second pane marked as unimplemented; today,
file-roller - opens archive contents, but opening source files passes
them to abiword which doesn't always manage to open what was passed
for .c and .h files : right clicking for Ãpen with' says there is no
suitable program, but allows me to choose other programs - gedit
then shows, above a list of "well, it's a program, but it won't know
what to do" desktop applications, and opening in gedit is fine.

So, this *might*, for all I know, be the current state of "works
properly" but I think it would be much better to just say that it
seems to work - at least that is a step up from "I built it, but no
idea if it works" ?

Äen
--
das eine Mal als TragÃdie, das andere Mal als Farce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page