Archaic wrote these words on 07/11/05 02:02 CST: > On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 10:46:48PM -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote: > >>What's the harm in that? > > The fact that the repo is starting to look like a junkyard.
I don't mean this the wrong way, Archaic, so don't take it as a demeaning comment. Please take it as a simple disagreement with your suggestion that some patches don't 'belong' on the LFS server. But to me, your comment above is an insult to everyone who has sent in a patch in good faith thinking their contribution may just help out somebody down the road. In fact, I myself have sent in patches, and there are some currently in the repo that are for packages not in the BLFS or LFS book. These are good patches that make a package build successfully. Additionally, some of these patches I've sent in have been located by others and have been incorporated into valid web sites for these packages. I'm almost certain that one of these patches has been incorporated into the CVS version of a package. To say that these types of patches make the repo look like a junkyard is an insult. -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 01:22:00 up 101 days, 55 min, 2 users, load average: 0.04, 0.08, 0.03 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
