Sorry about the blank message; I accidentally hit the wrong button. On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Andrew Haley <a...@redhat.com> wrote: > It was "This is possible, but it's tricky, and it's really important > to get it right. We don't want a half-arsed patch."
We've all seen cases where a quick patch is rejected in favor of a hypothetical patch, and years down the road, the program still has the problem. The people who blocked the quick patch, naturally, never bothered trying to write the patch they wanted. > That's a mistranslation. It means that there are other criteria > beyond some people having trouble. Such as, we really want multilibs > to be built. Who is we here? And why do you really want multilibs built? >> I think you should detect the issue as *soon as practical* and then >> *ALWAYS* emit a message that *TELLS THE USER WHAT TO DO*. > > Yes! Yes! Yes! Then what are we going to do about it? As per my first comment, nobody has offered to produce a patch in the form you would be happy with, so I'm not going to hold my breath that it's going to appear. -- Kie ekzistas vivo, ekzistas espero.
