alignment/spacing - lfs - r12.4-33-systemd

[rhubarbpieguy]

chapter08/systemd.xml

tar -xf ../../systemd-man-pages-258.tar.xz \
    --no-same-owner --strip-components=1     \

Should two spaces prior to the backslash in the components line be deleted for alignment?

[Bruce Dubbs]

Another instance where the length of an ENTITY changed and affected spacing.

Fixed.

[rhubarbpieguy]

I think too many spaces were deleted. It's now:

tar -xf ../../systemd-man-pages-258.1.tar.xz \
    --no-same-owner --strip-components=1   \

[rhubarbpieguy]

I'm confused as I thought this was accepted and fixed but I see no change. Am I wrong that the alignment should be changed?

[Bruce Dubbs]

Replying to rhubarbpieguy:

I'm confused as I thought this was accepted and fixed but I see no change. Am I wrong that the alignment should be changed?

It was fixed.

tar -xf ../../systemd-man-pages-&systemd-man-version;.tar.xz \
    --no-same-owner --strip-components=1   \
    -C /usr/share/man

But the entity &systemd-man-version; changed from '258' to '258.1'. When updating, the spacing issues are not always picked up when the number of characters in the entity changes. Note that the entity is defined in a different file from where it is used. In this case the entity is created in packages.ent and used in chapter08/systemd.xml and chapter08/udev.xml.

[Bruce Dubbs]

Fixed at commit 807cbf7e8c.

[Xi Ruoyao]

IMO we shouldn't try maintain the alignments too hard. We can just do a proof-reading during the freeze period and make it correct for releases, that would be enough to me.

[Bruce Dubbs]

Replying to Xi Ruoyao:

IMO we shouldn't try maintain the alignments too hard. We can just do a proof-reading during the freeze period and make it correct for releases, that would be enough to me.

I usually update LFS twice a month. These changes are trivial to fix. I won't search for spacing issues, but if I know about them, I'll fix them.

[Douglas R. Reno]

Replying to Bruce Dubbs:

Replying to Xi Ruoyao:

IMO we shouldn't try maintain the alignments too hard. We can just do a proof-reading during the freeze period and make it correct for releases, that would be enough to me.

I usually update LFS twice a month. These changes are trivial to fix. I won't search for spacing issues, but if I know about them, I'll fix them.

I prefer getting these in batches as well rather than just at the end of the cycle, as I personally don't build LFS manually very often and I think Bruce doesn't either. I do use jhalfs when possible but because of that I don't often go back and read the text.

[rhubarbpieguy]

I waited several weeks after seeing this was coded as fixed but not changed in the documentation. If I remember correctly, when the release version changed I thought it was coded fixed but the actual change was not done. I assumed it was simply dropped by error.

I'm not privy to the inner working of the documentation. Not correcting "# Begin /lib/lsb/init-funtions" makes no sense to me, but while it's easy to say "Hey, do this" I realize execution may be more complicated when push comes to shove. I don't mean to be pushy. I'm just trying to help.

I was planning to submit several alignment issues on the SysV side next week. Is it preferred I wait until the freeze period before the next release?

I usually check the documentation weekly. Typos I report immediately, but unless a 404 error I wait at least a month before reporting bad links. Links I report through blfs-dev. I reported two typos on the BLFS side this morning. Should I report typos immediately?

[Bruce Dubbs]

Replying to rhubarbpieguy:

I'm just trying to help.

I appreciate that.

Should I report typos immediately?

Yes, please.