On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 09:11:28PM -0300, Fernando de Oliveira wrote: > Thank you for undoing all you can find that I did. Even when the book > becomes worse (less exact) or even wrong. > > This is a characteristics I did not know you had. > Like every other editor over the years, apart from you, I do what seems to me to be right. I understand that you, on the other hand, do what actually is right. I am lucky that I have not had to put up with the sort of comments you have directed at other editors.
For what it is worth, I am unlikely to waste my time on other tickets for the next several weeks. I understand that you disagree with my change to pango-0.40, and perhaps you are correct - it was a month ago, and for once I did my testing in /tmp and also put my intermittent notes there [ it was a rush to get things in before -rc2 ]. I can recall that I built that damned package several times, as well as checking things which used it, and perhaps I used a version where I had not downloaded the testfiles when I came to try to run the tests. But I know you will not believe that - why attribute to accident or incompetence that which can be attributed to malice ? This post to which I am replying gives no context - I obviously did something else to piss you off, but I have no idea what it was, and I do not care. As for tests in general: for most packages, and particularly for desktop packages, the tests are rarely useful. Where I can, I will separate the time, and space, requirements for them. In the last few days I have seen posts from people on the lists who run tests, so perhaps your attitude will prevail. Meanwhile, I have nothing further to say to you. ĸen -- This email was written using 100% recycled letters. -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
