Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Jim Gifford wrote:
We have a rule in CLFS, if the file is just includes for another file,
That's wonderful, but where and when are these rules decided? And if
I'm supposed to be a dev (I've been since before anyone else save you
and Ryan) why don't I know about it?
That's always been the case, limit the # of files to eliminate the
errors, and the chance of improper data.
OK. So *please* at least *tell* the list about it. Don't just make the
change and keep on trucking without explaining anything. How can I (or
others who are interested) be expected to keep up-to-speed otherwise?
That's where I expect you to ask questions like, why was the sed put
in, was it reported upstream, what is the effect if the sed is not used.
I made the change that I know works, with the testing I have done. Now
Granted, Ken, Ryan, and the other devs, may of found a better way to
solve it, would I object to them putting it in. No, would I ask
questions, yes, if I didn't understand the change.
These particular changes we are making right now a major impacting ones,
because it affects GLIBC and GCC, and a lot of us have been doing
testing. If you want details about our testing, all you have to do is
ask, and I can provide you with all the data you need. But I'm not going
to waste time just submitting fodder to the list.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-lfs
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
