On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 09:13:43AM -0700, David R. Morrison wrote:
> The time wasn't wasted. You did many good things here, and you will be
> missed.
>
> -- Dave
>
>
Dave,
Sorry for the separate replies but I recalled one last thing that will
impact everyone here. Ben Elliston (who maintain
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 09:13:43AM -0700, David R. Morrison wrote:
> The time wasn't wasted. You did many good things here, and you will be
> missed.
>
> -- Dave
>
>
>
Dave,
A couple parting comments on the gcc4x packages. I am continuing to do
daily build of gcc trunk on x86_64-apple-darwi
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 06:53:58PM +0200, Max Horn wrote:
>
> Am 11.09.2009 um 18:24 schrieb Jack Howarth:
>
>> David,
>> Not according the obscene email that I just got
>> from one of your Japanese developers. Should have
>> forwarded that one to the list ;)
>
> If people do something like that,
Am 11.09.2009 um 18:24 schrieb Jack Howarth:
> David,
> Not according the obscene email that I just got
> from one of your Japanese developers. Should have
> forwarded that one to the list ;)
If people do something like that, it's of course sad. But I am glad
you did the right thing and did
David,
Not according the obscene email that I just got
from one of your Japanese developers. Should have
forwarded that one to the list ;) You've got one
very disfunctional crew under you.
Jack
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 09:13:43AM -0700, David R. Morrison wrote:
> The time was
The time wasn't wasted. You did many good things here, and you will
be missed.
-- Dave
On Sep 11, 2009, at 8:52 AM, Jack Howarth
wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 08:16:55AM -0700, David R. Morrison wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 11, 2009, at 7:52 AM, Jack Howarth wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 2) At least on
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 08:16:55AM -0700, David R. Morrison wrote:
>
> On Sep 11, 2009, at 7:52 AM, Jack Howarth wrote:
>
>>
>> 2) At least one core maintainer had no objections to the
>> concept of upgrading those.
>
> Jack,
>
> Perhaps you misread the message in question, but in fact there WAS an
On Sep 11, 2009, at 7:52 AM, Jack Howarth wrote:
>
> 2) At least one core maintainer had no objections to the
> concept of upgrading those.
Jack,
Perhaps you misread the message in question, but in fact there WAS an
objection to the upgrade you proposed, but you went ahead and did it
anyway
A couple more comments before I go. One recent episode
that stuck in my craw was the breakage of the unzip 3.0 package
on 10.4. I would mention that...
1) I posted the proposed packaging on fink tracking.
2) At least one core maintainer had no objections to the
concept of upgrading those.
3) I
Benjamin,
Again, my complaint is the berating was always coached in
the royal 'we' when there were (as far as can demonstrated
publicly) few complaints outside of a troika of developers.
If my behavior was so outside of the bounds, why did Dave
Morrison never once mention it? For you informatio
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 9/10/09 7:14 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
>Just to clear the air here, for those
> here are that unaware my transgressions
> being bandied about, here they are...
I won't deign to speak for others, but I believe Max was sincere in his
well wishes, a
I should also add how utterly amusing I find it that
some of the same people who endlessly carped at me during
the maturation of x86_64 fink (that I was pushing the
development to hard) now claim it was a mistake to
try to do i386 fink on 10.6 instead of just x86_64.
Jack
Just to clear the air here, for those
here are that unaware my transgressions
being bandied about, here they are...
1) I created a sdl-x86_64.info variant
in an attempt to free up the build of
gnuplot on x86_64 fink. After removing
this change, I found that we could simply
avoid Max Horn's pack
13 matches
Mail list logo
