Re: [patch #2507] Patch to update autoconf files

[Neal H. Walfield]

At Tue, 07 Sep 2004 15:37:54 +0200,
Alfred M. Szmidt <ams@kemisten.nu> wrote:
> 
>    >     "Comment out the u1434f and viarhine drivers which break
>    >     autoconf."
>    > 
>    > Is there any good reason why not just fix those two drivers to be
>    > sane and work with autoconf?
> 
>    No, feel free.
> 
> Then why do you bother sending in a broken patch? Disabling drivers
> for the sake of laziness is silly.  People actually do use the via
> rhine driver, I have no idea about uf143f but that is still no reason
> to disable drivers...

Get a life.  This patch represents an improvement over what marco
submitted and it is what I am using at the moment to build GNU Mach.
It may prove useful to others.  On the other hand, it may not.  If you
don't like it, don't use it.

> This patch shouldn't be committed since it breaks existing
> functionality (the viarhine and u143f drivers) without any good
> reason.

If you reread my message, I did not ask that it be committed in its
current state.  I posted the patch with a status report and asked for
help.

> PS.  I was asking for _technical_ reasons on why you disabled those
> drivers.  Not some fluffy puffy stuff... :-)

I have given the technical reason for why I disabled those drivers in
my original message.  But, that is not what you asked.  You wanted to
know if it would be possible to fix the drivers so that autoconf would
work.  I said that is possible.  Why don't I do it?  Well, it is my
prerogative to spend (or not spend) my free time as I see fit.  Until
you start paying me for my hacking time, have no expectations about
the work I am going to do.