Some packages I'd like to see added
jeremy at jutley.org
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
> 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
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