On 07 Feb, René J.V. Bertin wrote : > Not "yet"; if I'm right, their layout scheme helps them avoid issues like the > one I ran into, so they have less reason to defend their way of doing things > against yours.
Sure, but then don't complain that we're the ones at fault. > > a couple of mail ago accused us of insults and ad hominem attacks. > > Erm, and who accused me of being insulting? Where, again? > > What regression, once again? > > After 10s of comments, there is still no compile log, no runtime logs. > > Oh, so after 1h of communication between the deaf I finally understand that > you meant > "Can you give us the data needed to see if there is indeed a regression and > where, by doing a), b) and/or c)" > instead of > "What regression, there is no regression" > > I can provide whatever you need to do what I asked, just tell me what and how. https://wiki.videolan.org/Report_bugs And in your case, where you have a build issue, the compile log. > > > But I am! Please have a look at the logs I attached to the trac ticket... > > > > Jeremy wasn't, and that's the topic of this mail, about supposedly us > > insulting him, because we closed his bugreport that he kept reopening, > > while the whole time, he was hacking your buildsystem. > > In defense of Jeremy, I think he was. I took over the Portfile that had his > signature, so I'm presuming that's what he used too. > And it does a bootstrap before invoking configure. He claimed that sedding our buildsystem was correct. > > Not to mention heavily patching VLC, with no good reason, as we can see > > with the NSEnviron ticket. > > Again in his defense, I hold him in high esteem as a developer, who knows OS > X way more intimately than most (he's the main XQuartz developer). So what? He could be the kernel core developer or Linux Torvalds, that wouldn't change a thing. He behaved wrongly, and then complained we were insulting him, and lied about his patches not being taken in accounts. > I've seen the patches, I've even extended one (to get rid of the last > references to Growl). We may not agree on how good the reasons are for those > patches (= the ones I know of), but from what I can see they have nothing to > do with the issue at hand. One of them is amazing, by patching a clear and on-purpose limitation of linking to libavcodec 56... With my kindest regards, -- Jean-Baptiste Kempf http://www.jbkempf.com/ - +33 672 704 734 Sent from my Electronic Device _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
