On Thursday 15 June 2006 05:39, Peter wrote: > On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 04:29:44 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > being able to download patchsets from the internet, touchup a few lines > > so they apply without rejects, and releasing the result to the rest of > > the world deserves no respect/regard ... you've proven you have skills > > at: > > - wget > > - patch > > - an editor > > - tar > > > > the respect/regard comes when the compiled kernel *actually performs* > > I respect your opinion. But, does that mean e17 should be removed, because > it really has a lot of problems (like its file manager), or all it's > libraries? How about wine? Just because a project may entail risk, should > not eliminate it from being considered for inclusion in the tree OR in an > overlay.
you really dont get it e17 doesnt break the whole system wine doesnt break the whole system a pos kernel breaks the entire system and wastes everyone's time as it can cause *any package at all* to crash and have bug reports filed about that package your little sub thread here wasnt about different bleeding edge packages, it was about the obviously incorrect statement that kernel sources has no adverse affect on any other package -mike
pgpYxL2cxSTin.pgp
Description: PGP signature
