| 1 |
On Thursday 15 June 2006 05:39, Peter wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 04:29:44 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > being able to download patchsets from the internet, touchup a few lines |
| 4 |
> > so they apply without rejects, and releasing the result to the rest of |
| 5 |
> > the world deserves no respect/regard ... you've proven you have skills |
| 6 |
> > at: |
| 7 |
> > - wget |
| 8 |
> > - patch |
| 9 |
> > - an editor |
| 10 |
> > - tar |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > the respect/regard comes when the compiled kernel *actually performs* |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> I respect your opinion. But, does that mean e17 should be removed, because |
| 15 |
> it really has a lot of problems (like its file manager), or all it's |
| 16 |
> libraries? How about wine? Just because a project may entail risk, should |
| 17 |
> not eliminate it from being considered for inclusion in the tree OR in an |
| 18 |
> overlay. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
you really dont get it |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
e17 doesnt break the whole system |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
wine doesnt break the whole system |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
a pos kernel breaks the entire system and wastes everyone's time as it can |
| 27 |
cause *any package at all* to crash and have bug reports filed about that |
| 28 |
package |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
your little sub thread here wasnt about different bleeding edge packages, it |
| 31 |
was about the obviously incorrect statement that kernel sources has no |
| 32 |
adverse affect on any other package |
| 33 |
-mike |
Archives