Just a thought that popped into my head

Ian Molton spyro at armlinux.org
Wed May 8 02:02:29 PDT 2002


On Wed, 8 May 2002 08:27:33 +0200 (CEST)
Alex Kloss <alex at Stud-Mailer.Uni-Marburg.DE> wrote:

> > They know a LOT more about the issue than you or I (Im a kernel
> > developer, but a relatively new one).
> 
> Being a kernel developer brings you so much knowledge... Am I the only
> one seeing this is not an argument

Er. I /did/ point out that I am a /new/ kernel developer, didnt I? Ie.
not as knowledgeable as some. The point is that I (currently) defer to
the wisdom of someone who can work out problems I might have gotten
stuck on.

> Another thing I'm spotting: neither kernel nor gcc developers are a
> coherent mass. They are Individuals, each of them with an own opinion.

And when many of them share an opinion, people should take notice,
then...
 
> > I could 'prove' that its OK top drive a van through a brick wall,
> > but that doesnt mean its a good idea. But hey, the van got through
> > ok, so I neednt use my driveway gate again...
> 
> I'd like to see you proving that. No offense meant, but you need a
> very stable van to drive through a brick wall, unless the wall is
> faked...

I was thinking landrover. You'd probably knacker the radiator, though...
 
> Another thing is that you keep on not reading what the rest of us
> writes: we don't want to make LFS unstable, but we want to test,
> before we dismiss the usage of gcc-3.1.

Fine, TEST away. but something being TESTED is by definition unstable
(until proven otherwise. you cant say 'gcc is stable now the version is
3.1', it just doesnt work like that (witness kernel 2.4.10 (and
others)...).

use KNOWN WORKING code for the book, and let people TEST at THEIR OWN
RISK.
-- 
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list