On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 12:39:11PM -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote: > So, yes, I do think you guys are being lazy in that regard. If this > is the path you've chosen to go then you have an obligation not to > tear out major existing system capabilities, such as the ability to > generate static binaries, in the process.
If this is what you think has happened, you're living in some parallel fantasy universe. > There is a lot of circular reasoning going on here... it's the same sort > of circular reasoning that John uses to justify some of the more esoteric > scheduling mechanisms in -current. A because of B because of A, and > to hell with anyone who wanted to use C. Keep the ad homenim attacks to yourself, buster! This was uncalled-for. Kris
Description: PGP signature