Matthew Burgess wrote: > However, for such a trivial one-liner, I'd > prefer to go with Greg's `sed' (or a variation thereof) - unless he's > going to claim rights over it like he did with a previous effort.
Don't be ridiculous. Last time it was a question of attribution. LFS has a poor record of crediting contributions. Just look at the list of past editors who were removed from the Acknowledgments section of recent LFS releases. You would never get away with this if LFS were a software package like GCC or Glibc, instead of a written document. Yes, kudos to Gerard for trying to rectify the problem. But I'm getting off-topic now.. sorry. This time Ken has already pointed out my post via Google. It's an obvious fix anyway. No problem. End of story. For the record, I submitted this e2fsprogs fix to upstream but haven't received any confirmation back yet. I might also submit it to the SF bugtracker but my last effort there has also gone unanswered.. Regards Greg -- http://www.diy-linux.org/ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
