dean talbot wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>> Would the following rewording be enough?
>
> This may be pure semantics, but i find the following passage somewhat
> unsettling...
>
>> ...this removes ANY potential contamination of the target system by
>> LESSENING the chance of headers or librarie
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Would the following rewording be enough?
This may be pure semantics, but i find the following passage somewhat
unsettling...
> ...this removes ANY potential contamination of the target system by
> LESSENING the chance of headers or libraries from the host being
> incorporat
> I agree but I still don't see what is not explained. I've re-read your
> post from yesterday several times. Are you saying that we should
> explain the process of cross-compilation? To me it is reasonably
> obvious that if you use cross-compilation techniques then the system
> can't use r
Gerard Beekmans wrote:
>> You are arguing because of an implication that, quite honestly, I don't see.
> I'm not trying to be argumentative.
I was using the term argument in a more formal manner: a coherent series
of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion, not in the sense
of an alt
> You are arguing because of an implication that, quite honestly, I don't see.
>
>
I'm not trying to be argumentative. To me it's just seeing a technical
explanation that feels incomplete. Some claims are made that then aren't
further explained. I'll have to admit that I don't remember all t
Gerard Beekmans wrote:
>
>>> An example of how the host can corrupt the temporary libraries when you
>>> don't cross-compile would be very educational as well. It helps in
>>> proving
>>> that cross-compiling really is recommended.
>>
>> I don't think the above is applicable.
> If it's not
An example of how the host can corrupt the temporary libraries when you
don't cross-compile would be very educational as well. It helps in proving
that cross-compiling really is recommended.
I don't think the above is applicable.
If it's not applicable then that note should be rem
Gerard Beekmans wrote:
>>> What more do we need to add? Or can we just close the ticket?
>>> I think it was addressed in the updates Matt made about four months
>> ago
>>> and about 2 months after ticket 2412 was opened.
>> I'm happy to close that ticket off, I don't think it needs any more
>> exp
> > What more do we need to add? Or can we just close the ticket?
> > I think it was addressed in the updates Matt made about four months
> ago
> > and about 2 months after ticket 2412 was opened.
>
> I'm happy to close that ticket off, I don't think it needs any more
> explanation but am open to
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:34:24 -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> What more do we need to add? Or can we just close the ticket?
> I think it was addressed in the updates Matt made about four months ago
> and about 2 months after ticket 2412 was opened.
I'm happy to close that ticket off, I don't think i
10 matches
Mail list logo
