Tushar Teredesai wrote:
This is a very valid point IMO.
No, it is completely invalid. See below.
Since the cross-LFS will most probably
have the official LFS blessing,
Have you even looked at it? Let alone tried it? It has a long way to go.
I would like it to have proper
attribution. If
Jim Gifford wrote:
Not until a formal apology is posted. I want my name and LFS's name
cleared of the allegations you brought up. I WILL NOT back down on this
point.
Tough.
The facts speak for themselves, and you know it. I do not care anymore. If
you want to act like a 12 year old, go for
Greg Schafer wrote:
Tush, you have just clearly demonstrated you have no idea at all what
you're talking about on this topic.
I would kindly ask you to stop putting people down.
Unless you have the required level of experience and expertise in cross
compilation, you do not have a leg to
Greg Schafer wrote:
Why are you fanning flames like this?
Greg you start a fire, fan the flames until it is blazing out of control
and then you blame others for it. You were wrong to attack Jim on this
list. If you had an issue with him you should have handled it
privately. You
Greg's words: After looking at your commit in detail, it's quite
clear to me that you've
borrowed elements of my research when making these massive changes. I
don't mind you doing that, because it's a step in the right direction, but
could you please do the proper and ethical thing and at least
Randy McMurchy wrote:
The only bash docs installed right now are in man and info format. These
files are difficult to print, as well as being difficult to search
through.
Printing the manual page is easy:
man -t bash bash.ps
lpr bash.ps
This gives 64 letter pages or 60 A4 pages of
Greg Schafer wrote:
Jim Gifford wrote:
Not until a formal apology is posted. I want my name and LFS's name
cleared of the allegations you brought up. I WILL NOT back down on this
point.
Tough.
The facts speak for themselves, and you know it. I do not care anymore. If
you want to
In cross-lfs-20050730 ncurses-5.4-20050319-patch.sh.bz2 patch meant as
added, but seems not to be used.
Dzintars.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Greg Schafer wrote:
Jim Gifford wrote:
The community has spoken and is requesting that you apologize.
The community? You mean your IRC hero mates who don't have an
understanding of the technical issues? Get a clue Jim.
Please keep your off-topic rubbish off the list.
Thank you
On 7/31/05, Randy McMurchy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim Gifford wrote these words on 07/31/05 12:45 CST:
Greg, stop insulting the community and individuals. You started this on
list, and it will be finished on list.
But Jim, it will *never* be finished with you two guys.
Did so
Did
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Andrew Benton wrote these words on 07/31/05 12:11 CST:
There are some subtle but important differences between using CMMI and make -f
client.mk
make -f client.mk allows you to build in a separate obj.dir so you can build
firefox,
Actually, the book uses the
DJ Lucas wrote:
TY, even if LFS doesn't use it, it'll probably be needed in BLFS at some
point. Will dig in and play after BLFS-6.1 release.
Should be no need now. Upstream are onto it. See here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-07/msg02072.html
This should hopefully go onto the 3.4
12 matches
Mail list logo
