On 7/31/05, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim Gifford wrote these words on 07/31/05 12:45 CST:
>
> > Greg, stop insulting the community and individuals. You started this on
> > list, and it will be finished on list.
>
> But Jim, it will *never* be finished with you two guys.
>
> "D
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 07/31/05 12:45 CST:
Greg, stop insulting the community and individuals. You started this on
list, and it will be finished on list.
But Jim, it will *never* be finished with you two guys.
"Did so"
"Did not"
"Did so"
"Did not"
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 07/31/05 12:45 CST:
> Greg, stop insulting the community and individuals. You started this on
> list, and it will be finished on list.
But Jim, it will *never* be finished with you two guys.
"Did so"
"Did not"
"Did so"
"Did not"
...
How is this going to res
Greg Schafer wrote:
Jim Gifford wrote:
The community has spoken and is requesting that you apologize.
The community? You mean your IRC hero mates who don't have an
understanding of the technical issues? Get a clue Jim.
Please keep your off-topic rubbish off the list.
Thank you
Reg
Greg Schafer wrote:
Jim Gifford wrote:
Not until a formal apology is posted. I want my name and LFS's name
cleared of the allegations you brought up. I WILL NOT back down on this
point.
Tough.
The facts speak for themselves, and you know it. I do not care anymore. If
you want to ac
Greg's words: "After looking at your commit in detail, it's quite
clear to me that you've
"borrowed" elements of my research when making these massive changes. I
don't mind you doing that, because it's a step in the right direction, but
could you please do the proper and ethical thing and at least
Greg Schafer wrote:
Why are you fanning flames like this?
Greg you start a fire, fan the flames until it is blazing out of control
and then you blame others for it. You were wrong to attack Jim on this
list. If you had an issue with him you should have handled it
privately. You unjustly
Greg Schafer wrote:
Tush, you have just clearly demonstrated you have no idea at all what
you're talking about on this topic.
I would kindly ask you to stop putting people down.
Unless you have the required level of experience and expertise in cross
compilation, you do not have a leg to st
Jim Gifford wrote:
> Not until a formal apology is posted. I want my name and LFS's name
> cleared of the allegations you brought up. I WILL NOT back down on this
> point.
Tough.
The facts speak for themselves, and you know it. I do not care anymore. If
you want to act like a 12 year old, go f
Greg Schafer wrote:
Ok, good. Can we get back to improving the build now? Can we please keep
development discussions on list please? There is plenty that needs to be
done and I have long list of things to address.
Not until a formal apology is posted. I want my name and LFS's name
cleared o
Jim Gifford wrote:
> Are you man enough to apologize for false allegations? Look through the
> threads on this discussion.
There are no false allegations.
> Unethical practices (That's calling the kettle black)
> No technical toolchain knowledge. (You have never talked with me, so you
> don't
Tushar Teredesai wrote:
> This is a very valid point IMO.
No, it is completely invalid. See below.
> Since the cross-LFS will most probably
> have the official LFS blessing,
Have you even looked at it? Let alone tried it? It has a long way to go.
> I would like it to have proper
> attribution.
Tushar Teredesai wrote:
On 7/30/05, Jim Gifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Do you want to be associated with something that is utilizing unethical
practices, I don't think so.
This is a very valid point IMO. Since the cross-LFS will most probably
have the official LFS blessing, I wou
On 7/30/05, Jim Gifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Do you want to be associated with something that is utilizing unethical
> practices, I don't think so.
>
This is a very valid point IMO. Since the cross-LFS will most probably
have the official LFS blessing, I would like it to have proper
at
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 07/30/05 01:25 CST:
> Randy if you were being accused of things, wouldn't you speak up. Yes
> you would. Since this wasn't taken care of privately, and my name which
> is associated with LFS is dragged through the mud. It affects all of us.
> The easiest solution
Randy if you were being accused of things, wouldn't you speak up. Yes
you would. Since this wasn't taken care of privately, and my name which
is associated with LFS is dragged through the mud. It affects all of us.
The easiest solution is for me to drop cross-lfs and leave the project,
but I do
Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 07/30/05 00:47 CST:
> What's more, he's done so in a dignified and rational manner, he hasn't
> at all been accusatory or rash, so his messages could hardly be found an
> attempt to have the last say in the matter.
I see it differently. So, we'll just have t
Randy McMurchy wrote:
C'mon Jim, work this out off list. Nobody here gives a shit about
all this. We only care about the technical stuff. You say "instead of
opening this up in the public eye", yet you won't let it go. Please
drop it.
Nobody cares.
Incorrect. You forget that Jim was away from
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 07/30/05 00:29 CST:
[snip bunch of garbage]
> How do you expect me to work with you on something when you attacked me
> like you did, what you did was totally uncalled for and unacceptable by
> moral standards. You should of communicated to me privately, instead
Greg Schafer wrote:
Jim Gifford wrote:
So as you can see, yes I did look at Greg's scripts, but I did not use
them. What I don't understand here Greg is why you can say I stole your
work and didn't give you credit,
Jim, never once have I used the word "stolen". The changes you made
Jim Gifford wrote:
> So as you can see, yes I did look at Greg's scripts, but I did not use
> them. What I don't understand here Greg is why you can say I stole your
> work and didn't give you credit,
Jim, never once have I used the word "stolen". The changes you made to the
LFS Cross build mad
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 07/29/05 13:22 CST:
> I was pointing out the facts, as I see them and as they are on the
> list. This is my only post on this whole issue, everything else has come
> through Gerard after communicating with me. It's time for me to defend
> myself, because thi
Ken Moffat wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005, Jim Gifford wrote:
In my
book patching GCC should only be done when neccessary, to me there had
to be a better solution.
Hi Jim,
Applying that remark to a different context, I guess that means you'll
be dead against lib|lib32 (instead of lib64|
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 07/29/05 11:54 CST:
So as you can see, yes I did look at Greg's scripts, but I did not use
them. What I don't understand here Greg is why you can say I stole your
work and didn't give you credit, when I patch glibc to fix the issue and
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005, Jim Gifford wrote:
> In my
> book patching GCC should only be done when neccessary, to me there had
> to be a better solution.
Hi Jim,
Applying that remark to a different context, I guess that means you'll
be dead against lib|lib32 (instead of lib64|lib), or indeed pure64
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 07/29/05 11:54 CST:
> So as you can see, yes I did look at Greg's scripts, but I did not use
> them. What I don't understand here Greg is why you can say I stole your
> work and didn't give you credit, when I patch glibc to fix the issue and
> you don't. I think
Because of the controversy of the changes made in cross-lfs and everyone
asking why, what, where, and how, here is the roadmap for those changes.
I did keep notes.
In the MIPS build, I was experimenting with removal of packages, which
anyone can verify that I've been doing. Ryan and I were tal
27 matches
Mail list logo
