Okie, since you are incapable of actually keeping a two-sided technical discussion; lets change into my flame proof clothes and drop to your level of skills when it comes to discussions.
> > "Comment out the u1434f and viarhine drivers which break > > autoconf." > > > > Is there any good reason why not just fix those two drivers > > to be sane and work with autoconf? > > No, feel free. > > Then why do you bother sending in a broken patch? Disabling > drivers for the sake of laziness is silly. People actually do > use the via rhine driver, I have no idea about uf143f but that is > still no reason to disable drivers... Get a life. This patch represents an improvement over what marco submitted and it is what I am using at the moment to build GNU Mach. Bullshit, it breaks existing _WORKING_ code where as Marco's patch does not. Marco's patch does also in fact work. So your claims that this patch is an improvement over Marco's are a fiction of your own damn imagination. So the only one who should get a life is you; I asked a polite question, you respond with throwing rocks at me. > This patch shouldn't be committed since it breaks existing > functionality (the viarhine and u143f drivers) without any good > reason. If you reread my message, I did not ask that it be committed in its current state. I posted the patch with a status report and asked for help. I reread your message, nowhere did you state that this should be committed, but you also nowhere stated that this _SHOULD NOT_ be committed. So by all normal non-nealian logic any patch that gets submitted should be assumed that it is going to be committed; unless otherwise stated. Which is a fact that you did not state. > PS. I was asking for _technical_ reasons on why you disabled > those drivers. Not some fluffy puffy stuff... :-) I have given the technical reason for why I disabled those drivers in my original message. Well boo hoo frigging hoo, I missed a little snippet, I'm human. Guess that you are not; since you can't just _politely_ point out the fact that I missed this bit of information. _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
