Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 08/09/05 14:22 CST: > BTW, if the guidelines for patch submission had been followed, there > would not have been a "better" patch ;-)
I see your smiley, so consider this just a play on the policy here. There was no reason to follow the patch submission policy. :-) I did not *submit* a patch to the patches project. I created a *new* patch for the BLFS project. But because a new policy was put into place *after* that, one that says all patches in the BLFS repo should also be in the Patches repo (a good policy), the *new* re-diffed Expect patch was placed in the Patches project. :-) -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 14:27:00 up 129 days, 14:00, 2 users, load average: 0.13, 0.42, 0.67 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
