Pure LFS / Next LFS Release
pinskie at physics.uc.edu
Wed May 28 05:37:54 PDT 2003
> On Wed, 28 May 2003 03:55:23 +0100
> James Iwanek <chthon at chthon-uk.com> wrote:
> > Ian Molton wrote:
> > > On Wed, 28 May 2003 03:19:32 +0100
> > > James Iwanek <chthon at chthon-uk.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> ive got a simple solution which will keep everyone happy: lets use
> > >a> variable, then people can name it whatever they want without
> > >causing> another unsolvable debate.....
> > >
> > > thats already one of the debated solutions ;-)
> > >
> > oh, well i second that then ;-)
> +1 here.
So uhm, since you guys are suggesting using a variable as a solution
how do you plan to modify the gcc patches? I mean, really, are you
going to except people to sed them just to make them do the proper
effect? I mean really, do you think that's worthwhile, and not
going to create even more of a hassle to the support list? I really
do not care what happens to it, for all I care, it could stay /stage1,
why? because you don't have to follow the book, just modify it yourself.
The book should have something concrete, not variable. And if somebody
doesn't like it, they can modify it themselves, isn't that the beauty
of LFS? You do what you want, not what joe blow wants.
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