From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <9front-bounces@9front.inri.net>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,
	HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Received: from 9front.inri.net (9front.inri.net [168.235.81.73])
	by inbox.vuxu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5FFE2203A
	for <ml@inbox.vuxu.org>; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 10:38:20 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from wopr.sciops.net ([216.126.196.60]) by 9front; Wed Apr 17 04:35:12 -0400 2024
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sciops.net; s=20210706;
	t=1713342890;
	h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id:
	 to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type:
	 content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding:  in-reply-to:in-reply-to;
	bh=eXbuXh+pYw2F9QSnLNbkOVOllAOdIdbGx1ODL84qLzg=;
	b=PLz19rxiZ3B4fLwrC68giLXihC6Eq2M2PtCT4KITUl9H9W/rADeq2OZEdkzL2ZvAKZRShi
	4PeMS/Vg9c016EUJOGnZbghBCN1awqQk6cmInSIljYtPzrdf0Uv+fOZpibLOMacRoqR7OG
	zenPYCt9i3dhDBbtlCTBtb/kgg9HP7E=
Received: 
	by wopr.sciops.net (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id 6bde458c (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305:256:NO)
	for <9front@9front.org>;
	Wed, 17 Apr 2024 01:34:50 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <0153B4493FF103FD84D346BB2594B481@wopr.sciops.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 10:34:59 +0200
From: qwx@sciops.net
To: 9front@9front.org
In-Reply-To: <91e7a735acb4d6d46839c333877a69c0@posteo.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-ID: <9front.9front.org>
List-Help: <http://lists.9front.org>
X-Glyph: ➈
X-Bullshit: persistence enhancement DOM-oriented self-signing solution 
Subject: Re: [9front] Minor Deviations in Section 4.3.11+ of the FQA?
Reply-To: 9front@9front.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed Apr 17 08:18:27 +0200 2024, alex-ml@posteo.de wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I have noticed minimal differences in the wording of the installer and 
> the FQA in section 4.3.11 and following. Is this because I am using a 
> nigthly build, or could I send a patch for the FQA?
> 
> Thank you and best regards,
> Alex

Hi,

It's possible that the scripts have been updated without taking the
fqa into account.  You're welcome to send a patch for this or any
other discrepancies you've noticed.  Thanks!

Cheers,
qwx