spyro at f2s.com
Sun Apr 6 15:19:48 PDT 2003
On Sun, 6 Apr 2003 22:03:07 +0000 (UTC)
gschafer at zip.com.au (Greg Schafer) wrote:
> > greg, could you whip up another patch to just rip out the test so we
> > will be inline with the gcc peops?
> Get real! Zack knows more about that stuff than I do. Once he makes
> the changes then we can re-evaluate. For now, the current patch stays.
I notice you didnt even reply to my suggestion that we do what james
suggested, suggesting you probably killfiled me and wont read this, but
you are giving James the same *RUDE* treatment you gave me when I
questioned how your stuff worked.
IMHO, James is right too - Zack seems to be indicating that:
1) The test is going to be replaced anyhow
2) It only applies to Cygwin
which means that replacing the test with a fixed value is *very* likely
the right thing to do (unless, as I said, its possible to do a PLFS from
Your inability to accept ANY sort of criticism makes me very wary of
That goes for ANY developer that acts like that, no matter HOW good they
think they are.
____ _ ___
| _ \(_)___ __ _ _ _ _ __ | __|_ _____ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ ___
| |_) | (_-</ _` | '_| ' \ | _|\ V / -_) '_| || / _ \ ' \/ -_)
|____/|_/__/\__,_|_| |_|_|_| |___|\_/\___|_| \_, \___/_||_\___|
Boycott products from warring nations |__/
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