Greg Schafer wrote:
<snipped loads of stuff I can't comment on because I've never run into the issue, so have to rely on others reports of what is/was going on>
Not only is the text wrong, it's some of the poorest English language I've read in a long while and is guaranteed to make any English teacher cringe.
Agreed, it could use some rewording. Of course, instead of flaming LFS community members (see below) you could have actually provided a patch or even simply suggested appropriate wording. From previous experience, I'm sadly not surprised at which you opted to provide though :(
Sorry for coming across as harsh, but you as an LFS staff member and someone who continually posts as if you know everything when you clearly do not, left yourself wide open here.
Your suggestions didn't come across as harsh to me, Greg. You simply stated what you thought was wrong/inaccurate and why. Like I said above, I can't take those comments on board as I can't verify it on my own PC. I would like to say though, that I was led to believe that chapter 5 glibc built fine, but with SELinux functionality. When compiling chapter 6 glibc, it thought that the SELinux headers would therefore be available and hence fail.
Please stick to what you're good at and go back to IRC where you can be a hero. Recall that you started with this inflammatory tone in the other thread. I'll finish it.
I didn't spot any inflammatory tone until this point, which was completely uncalled for. Whilst your technical comments are more than welcome here, these constant attempts to start a flamewar are certainly not. If you're unable to provide technical comments without derogatory comments toward members of the LFS community I'd rather you didn't post at all.
Regards,
Matt. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
