Some packages I'd like to see added

Jeremy Utley jeremy at
Fri Dec 31 04:25:24 PST 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
> longer.
> 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.


More information about the blfs-dev mailing list