On 2007-05-12, Alexander Shishkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
all I was saying is that the fact that you're uncomfortable with
something doesn't make it suck or a fucked up mess. Statements that
you make here are solely based upon your feelings and you try to use
as if they were objectively
On 2007-05-13, Ben Hutchings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Have you tried mod_xinerama? There is a Debian package (currently
ion3-mod-xinerama; may need to be renamed) and it has just entered the
archive.
I think it (and other modules I don't care for) should somehow indicate
that it will void
On 5/7/07, Tuomo Valkonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Having to fix autoconf scripts is the same as having to edit sources,
and worse. Having to edit a well-designed Makefile is the same as having
to edit a decent (non-XML) configuration file.
At least, autoconf deals with cross-compilation while
On 2007-05-12, Alexander Shishkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At least, autoconf deals with cross-compilation while most of those
who think that they can write decent makefiles fail to do so.
If cross-compilation needs more than changing the compiler used
and/or its flags, and library/include
On 5/12/07, Tuomo Valkonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2007-05-12, Alexander Shishkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At least, autoconf deals with cross-compilation while most of those
who think that they can write decent makefiles fail to do so.
If cross-compilation needs more than changing the
On 2007-05-12, Alexander Shishkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How can you tell if malloc(0) in target's C library returns zero or
behaves like glibc's, for example? What with 1500 of such little
conditional settings? Defining all those in a makefile is what I
prefer to call being fucked up.
On 5/13/07, Tuomo Valkonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2007-05-12, Alexander Shishkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Every program containing the same slow-to-run, unmaintainable and
broken M4 mess to check for those 1500 such little conditions, is
what I call fucked up.
And for that reason let's
On Sat, 2007-05-12 at 19:36 +0400, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
snip
Except, probably the case when I discovered that ion3 no longer does
xinerama due to you being somehow upset with xinerama API. Just like
you rolled back to an older kernel, I had to roll back to a
known-to-work snapshot of
On 2007-05-09 13:24 +0400, Alex Tomas wrote:
Tuomo Valkonen wrote:
http://iki.fi/tuomov/b/archives/2007/04/01/T19_09_22/
I can't build good kernel myself - they're idiots.
congrats, amazing logic!
You logic is even more amazing, being able to infer
that from my writings.
--
Tuomo
On 2007-05-06, csant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also known as ion-3rc-20070506.
There seem to be no darcs changes to pull, and also the online changelog
doesn't show the last changes.
I'm not going to make it easy for all the forkers...
--
Tuomo
On 5/7/07, Tuomo Valkonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2007-05-06, csant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also known as ion-3rc-20070506.
There seem to be no darcs changes to pull, and also the online changelog
doesn't show the last changes.
I'm not going to make it easy for all the forkers...
Too
On 2007-05-07 10:52 +0400, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
Too much of a codebase to fork anyway. Better go with something lighter. :)
You mean something not worth the distributions carrying at all,
because you need to modify the source to configure it?
Hmm.. that might be a way to stop them
On 2007-05-07, Alexander Shishkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh, cut off the drama, it was you who ripped off 'autoconf shit' from
the rc, wasn't it?
Autoconf is autopain, a solution waiting for a problem... creating a
problem [1]. Clear and simple makefiles are _much_ easier to use.
Again,
I'm not going to make it easy for all the forkers...
How sad...
/c
On 5/7/07, Tuomo Valkonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2007-05-07, Alexander Shishkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh, cut off the drama, it was you who ripped off 'autoconf shit' from
the rc, wasn't it?
Autoconf is autopain, a solution waiting for a problem... creating a
problem [1]. Clear and
On 2007-05-07, Alexander Shishkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Autoconf is autopain, a solution waiting for a problem... creating a
problem [1]. Clear and simple makefiles are _much_ easier to use.
Errm, isn't that the same as having to edit sources to configure a program?
Having to fix autoconf
My impression is that, these days there is much less stupid questions
on this list than there were three years ago, which makes me think
that users tend to become less of lusers, no?
I must diagree with this point. Luser questions on ion3's ML only
means there are less lusers that use ion3 and
On 2007-05-07, Sylvain Abélard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Reading doc is so painful, when you feel anyone must give you the
right answer and do the work for you.
Reading documentation is painful, and shouldn't be necessary (beyond
very general documentation) for basic configuration tasks (like
On Mon, 2007-05-07 at 06:08 +, Tuomo Valkonen wrote:
On 2007-05-06, csant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also known as ion-3rc-20070506.
There seem to be no darcs changes to pull, and also the online changelog
doesn't show the last changes.
I'm not going to make it easy for all the
On 2007-05-07, Tuomo Valkonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ah, but most of the lusers will be using the distributions' forks.
Since the site requires registration, I'll just say it here: many of
the names at http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?p=69522 are
GAIM vs. AIM all over again, or even
Also known as ion-3rc-20070506.
This is the first rc or (stable) release candidate release of
Ion3. This means that there will not be any further major changes
to it. Bugs will be fixed, and as an exception to the general
feature freeze, some hooks may still be added, if deemed useful.
Also known as ion-3rc-20070506.
There seem to be no darcs changes to pull, and also the online changelog
doesn't show the last changes.
/c
22 matches
Mail list logo
