Apologies in advance, this mail will break the threading...
Possibly our mailservers white/grey listing is playing havoc with my
lfs-dev subscription (haven't received a mail since the 22nd)
Currently following this from the mail archives
Some history for folks that weren't around.
CLFS ba
Ken Moffat wrote:
> I'm flattered, but disconcerted - aren't all editors supposed to
> take a balanced view ?
Yes, they are. And I think for the most part they have. What I really
meant was, from my perspective, you seem to have managed to keep
yourself separate from the social issues, which is
On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 04:14:49PM -0500, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
> Well, it's going to take a firm resolve and direction by those taking
> the lead in the projects. You would have to have some sort of discussion
> to attempt to bring efforts together. Here's a quick list to try:
>
> Gerard (i
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Tushar Teredesai wrote:
>
>> I still don't get it. Does the current LFS leadership get to decide
>> what every project that ever "forked" from LFS can and cannot do?
>
> No, and I don't think it's even being tried. There are some expressions of
> regret that there are perso
Tushar Teredesai wrote:
> I still don't get it. Does the current LFS leadership get to decide
> what every project that ever "forked" from LFS can and cannot do?
No, and I don't think it's even being tried. There are some expressions of
regret that there are personality conflicts and a wish by
