Greg Schafer wrote:
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Oh dear. Sorry about that folks. As Bruce points out though, Trac's
much better at remembering bugs than I am!
This "must-use-trac" attitude from the LFS project is abhorrent IMHO. Most
open source projects are just happy to receive any feedback whatsoever.
Of course we're happy to receive your feedback, Greg (and anyone elses
for that matter). We don't have a "must-use-trac" attitude, or I
certainly don't anyway. I strongly prefer folks to use Trac, just so as
things don't get dropped, as was the case here.
If folks report typos and other such stuff that's quickly fixable via
the mailing list then I'll usually deal with it pretty quickly. For
more detailed issues like this, I leave it until I have the time to
investigate it properly. Unfortunately I forgot about this issue so it
never got addressed until now.
Whatever happened to the good ol days when Gerard or some responsible
person carefully recorded in the BTS issues reported on the mailing list?
Yes, I'll start doing that from now on.
The /bin/rm issue is only indirectly related. After the moving of
e2fsprogs, just look at the e2fsprogs testsuite build log and you'll see
why the /bin/rm symlink is needed.
OK, I assume this is another ICA issue as the iter2 run will have
/bin/rm in there instead, right?
Regards,
Matt.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
