On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 02:34:22 -0600 Jesse Luehrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why is it incorrect? I did not say it was incorrect, I said it was no more correct than mine. He replaced a mostly correct auto detection with a mostly correct hard coding. Both methods had manual intervention in case the default was wrong. Both methods have flaws. Great for his grand standing ego stroking style, he can now claim he "fixed" my "terrible" code. I hope it makes him feel good. > How did it make things worse? Entrance from cvs no longer compiles. In a grand act of throwing the baby out with the bath water, the pam configuration auto detection was removed as well as the VT auto detection. This will cause the same old support issues I wrote it to fix. Even after patching things up so that it will compile, it left my system in a worse state than my version did. > Answers to these questions would be useful in fixing the problem. If this was actually about fixing things, then instead of continually pouring scourn on my contribution, things would have simply been fixed. All we have really accomplished is to generate a lot of noise that makes us all look foolish. But the all powerful and always perfect KainX is now happy, who am I to complain.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
