On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 10:57:57PM +0100, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> > they were involved, but I have reason to doubt that they actually agreed.
>
> They did.
O.k. let's disagree ;)
> > This really is an affront on your side, twisting reality quite a bit - the
> I noticed you carefully deleted the rest of that paragraph. Perhaps people
I didn't carefully delete that paragraph - however, I also didn't want
this thread to become a personal attacking flamewar either. I wasn't
at all satisfied with your initial reaction and shoot back. I actually
wanted this thread to dicsuss wether the kernel should care for specific
unofficial versions of some software in some distros - I just think that
no software project should work around bugs in software never release by
the original authors just because it is used in a major distribution,
where people have virtually no choice (if, like in debian, there were
seperate gcc-2.95 and gcc-pre3 packages that could be used alternatively,
this would be differemt, but AFAIK the redhat package management system is
not able to provide for this).
So let's die this thread, or at least the name-calling right now. I'll try
as best as I can to keep the disucssion to the original, on-topic point
only.
--
-----==- |
----==-- _ |
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +--
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / pcg@opengroup.org |e|
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+
The choice of a GNU generation |
|
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 30 2000 - 21:00:27 EST