Some packages I'd like to see added

DJ Lucas dj at linuxfromscratch.org
Fri Dec 31 11:01:38 PST 2004


On Thu, 2004-12-30 at 23:02 -0600, 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?
> 
Wrong.  I replied in a positive manner.  I like x-chat and the IM
clients, even though I rarely use IM.  The cmmi argument hasn't been a
good argument for a long time, as I believe it was Randy who poited out
that the dependancy lists and download locations are far more useful
than the simple CMMI.  Fortune I don't particularly care about, but
somewhere in the above it was hinted to put it in or patch out the
installation of screensavers than need it, or maybe better, put in a
link to the hint.  gkrellm sounded good, but Larry's post regarding 'the
sensors' makes that one look to be a little more like good hint
material.  I mean c'mon guys, Jeremy offered to write the pages and to
maintain them in the future even!  Perhaps we could be a little more
thankful for the help.

-- DJ Lucas






More information about the blfs-dev mailing list