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
<<winmail.dat>>
-- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
