[Prev] Thread [Next]  |  [Prev] Date [Next]

Re: Some packages I'd like to see added Jeremy Utley Fri Dec 31 04:24:09 2004

Randy McMurchy wrote:

Jeremy Utley wrote:

And in my opinion this is wrong. LFS is a community driven project, and BLFS is an extention of LFS. *IF* someone is volunteering to do the legwork for the BLFS editors, building the package, checking it all out, checking deps, and so forth, then IMHO, it's extremely short-sighted to not accept that assistance.

I've had enough. I'm an opinionated person and can't hold it any

Jeremy, you sound like the girl that can't get a date to the
high school prom, and you're just not going to stop asking all
the boys until someone asks you out.

You've made your point. Everyone knows which packages you'd like
to see in BLFS.

Enough said, okay?

Oh, but I'm sure you'll find something I've said to reply to.

Nobody has responded in a positive manner to your suggestions.
Doesn't this mean anything to you?

Doesn't the fact that no less than 4 BLFS editors have disagreed
with some of your suggestions mean *anything* to you?

I'm sorry, Randy, but I think you better recount. The ONLY BLFS editors who have spoken against my suggestion are yourself - most likely because of your intense hatred of IRC - and Archaic, because of the simple nature of these packages. DJ's response was definately in favor of adding most of these packages, and Bruce & Larry's posts seem to me to negate Archaic's argument - they specifically state that a package being a simple compile does not necessarily eliminate it from consideration for BLFS.

I ask you to please keep the discussion civil. You have now twice attacked me in this thread - once simply because I'm someone who enjoys hanging out with other LFSers on IRC, and once in the email I am now replying to. I have endeavored to remain civil in this thread, despite the fact that the attitudes I have seen frustrate me to no end.