Jim Gifford wrote:
Tushar Teredesai wrote:
On 1/5/06, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
why would LFS consider doing a bunch of patching and such when it is
just a guess if this is what is going to be coming down the pipe in
just a couple of weeks with these new versions you mention?
I don't think Jim is proposing adding the changes to LFS. The way I
understood his post is that it is more for the bleeding edge guys so
that they can play around with the new stuff till it hits the released
versions of the packages. Similar to LFSers who play around with the
toolchain cvs versions. Jim, correct me if I misunderstood the intent.
That is correct, I'm not going to even put this into cross-lfs until
those issues are resolved. There are so many of them. The net-fs
stuff, drivers not having uevent. Which as of today is in the works
for 2.6.16, which reminds me to update the todo list of cross-lfs.
I get tired of people saying I'm keeping everything secret of what I'm
doing. I brought what I found to the masses now that it works properly,
and now I'm getting harassed for it. Do I really deserve this treatment,
I don't think so. I'm tired of this crap, especially from you Randy
since your the only one who seems to have the problem with what I'm
doing and what I have accomplished with Cross-LFS.
I think it may be time to reinstate the lfs-hackers list, this thread is
a really good example why.
--
------
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
LFS User # 2577
Registered Linux User # 299986
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
