Norman,

Just took a look at SUN/248, reminded by the recent exchange.  Looks
good.  I spotted some typographical errors, and have one important
structural suggestion.

The basic instructions should be in a short separate section with
suitable words in its title, such that search engines will readily find
it.  Something like "Generic build and install of Starlink software".
"Portable" now I think of it might be better than "Generic".  You get
the idea.  When I reached Section 2, I was wondering where the
instrument-independent information was.

You might put the basic three commands in a bigger typeface so they
stand out.

Does this system build the STARJAVA or just the Classic applications?
The scope be stated clearly in the Introduction and Abstract.

I think project meaning [Starlink] Project should begin with a capital
letter.  You know I prefer co-ordinate, the English spelling.  Today we
had an "outage", and on the radio news I heard about nucular weapons.
The newsreader used the Bushism three times.  Dates seem to be going to
the American order not the ISO/IAU/oriental.  )-:


Section 1, para. 2, line 1.   On "These are" is more "These were".
Since we've not made any releases under the new system, can we be sure?
They used to be biannually under the CD releases, but not since ISOs
were made.  Anyway, upon re-reading I think I'll pass the
optimistic sentence.  If we're closed down, we'll have to make changes.

para. 2, line 2 "we target".  I'd prefer "Starlink targets".

para. 3 S/Execpt/Except/.

Section 1. Final sentence lacks fullstop.

Section 1.1.  Not everyone knows what CVS is.  A brief explanation and
link would be handy.

Item 1.  You might give the link to the location of the nightly builds.

Section 2.1, line 1/2.  "Apple doesn't include g77 in its distribution."

Final sentence, there's no explaniation of what STARJAVA is.

Section 2.3, para 1, line 3 s/,././

Section 2.6, para. 1, lines 1--2.  What's this tetex 1.* package?  If
that's a version number, you need a box around it so the name and
version are on the same line.   I couldn't  work out what it was on
first reading.

Line 1.  Can we remove the "(I think)".  Is that a plebeian I (opposite
to royal we), as you have three authors? (-:

Item 1.  Lacks trailing fullstop.

Item 2.  s/newly-built/newly built/ because it's an adverb ending in
"ly".  I learnt this from the Chicago Manual of Style two decades ago.

Section 3.  There needs to be more consistency of use of \tt for "{\tt
mk} script", e.g. para. 2, line 1 and Item 1.  I did wonder if there
were other instances where you needed a \tt where you're referring to
actual commands, e.g. f95 on Section 2.3, para. 3.

Item 1 missing that fullstop again.  At least you're consistent!

Last paragrapgh (and in Section 3.1), I think you mean SSN/78, not
SUN/78.

Section 3.2, final para. s/top level/top-level/.

After reading Section 3.4 I wondered (playing the naive user), if it
were possible to build against static libraries, and if so, how.

Malcolm