Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Your message was deliberately misleading, designed to suggest that >> there had been a fix in for a while (even if "not that old yet"), when >> in fact, the patch was posted *after* my message. > > What the hell is your problem? Yes, the patch is _one_ day old and instead > of thanking me for finally fixing this problem, I get this?
I have no idea if you have fixed the problem or not; I'm not the package maintainer and I haven't examined the patch. But you attempted to trick people, by pretending that the patch was already there before my email. You wanted to make me look bad, as if I was bringing up an example where there was a patch in the bug-log. Since your claim is that m68k suffers because maintainers ignore patches in the bug logs, you concocted an example right away. Your message gave no hint that you in fact posted the patch in *response* to my message, and indeed, since you're trying to blame maintainers for ignoring m68k patches, it fits right in line with your general attack to concoct just such a case, when in fact, the opposite was the case. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
