Could you stop the AC bashing, please
matthias at winterdrache.de
Mon Feb 24 05:51:36 PST 2003
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 13:39:26 +1100 Ryan.Oliver at pha.com.au wrote:
> I wouldn't consider it a flame but a fact, Alan Cox did level criticism
> at us, and personally when I hear AC speak, I listen, then do something
> about it, coz something is wrong.
"pure LFS" will not invalidate AC's point. I'm very sorry that I have to
mention Greg by name again, but he is the perfect example. 2 times already
have we stumbled across problems caused by his tweaking, problems that
would have occurred even with the pure LFS build method. pure LFS will
give conservative users like me a better toolchain, but those users were
never the problem. AC has a problem with people reporting alleged bugs in
the kernel that in fact result from code generation errors due to an
I understand AC's frustration with this. I remember well how I chased
after alleged problems in my instructions for compiling the keymap into
the kernel, and how annoyed I was when people were actively discouraging
others from using my instructions, even though the problems were caused by
Greg's tweaks. Yes, it was a GCC bug, but that is not the point. It was a
bug that only got exposed when you fiddled with optimizations. How is
"pure LFS" going to solve this problem? It isn't!
Removing all optimization hints, banning all hints that include
non-default optimizations and censoring all mails that reference
optimizations of any kind would be orders of magnitude more effective than
"pure LFS" in convincing AC that LFSers are using good tools and that
their bug reports can be trusted.
Now before someone wants to let off steam again, flaming me, suggesting I
said things I didn't, I want to get this straight: I do not suggest that
we implement the previous paragraph. What I want to say is that LFS users
as a collective can never ever be trusted to have a working build
toolchain. It's simply a consequence of what LFS is: a guideline, meant to
be deviated from. It lies in the very nature of LFS.
AC is right when he does not trust LFS users to report kernel bugs. Pure
LFS will not change this a bit. So it's wrong to flame AC, because he is
right. And it's wrong to use AC's words as justification for pure LFS,
because that's missing the point.
All of this, of course, has nothing to do with the qualities of pure LFS,
just with the way it has been introduced and is presented.
Why is TV called a medium?
Because it's neither rare nor well done.
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