Offtopic Rubbish

Ian Molton spyro at f2s.com
Sun Apr 6 16:58:13 PDT 2003


On Sun, 6 Apr 2003 22:52:11 +0000 (UTC)
gschafer at zip.com.au (Greg Schafer) wrote:

> > I notice you didnt even reply to my suggestion that we do what james
> 
> So, I take time out of my own weekend to update the list on some
> current bugs that *I* discovered that will ultimately benefit the
> whole LFS community and coz I don't respond to your post you feel the
> need to abuse me?

No. I was quite careful to say that that *appeared* to indicate that
you'd killfiled me, since I suggested what James did quite a while
before he did, and you responded to his significantly later post first.

but that is all beside the point anyhow. the real meat of what I wrote,
you seem to have missed completely, so I'll re-post it for you:

------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Cygwin).

Your inability to accept ANY sort of criticism makes me very wary of
your work.

That goes for ANY developer that acts like that, no matter HOW good they
think they are.

-- 
Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons for you are tasty and good with
ketchup.
-- 
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