[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

From: Alfred M. Szmidt
Subject: Re: [patch #2507] Patch to update autoconf files
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 16:19:38 +0200

Okie, since you are incapable of actually keeping a two-sided
technical discussion; lets change into my flame proof clothes and drop
to your level of skills when it comes to discussions.

   >    >     "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

Bullshit, it breaks existing _WORKING_ code where as Marco's patch
does not.  Marco's patch does also in fact work.  So your claims that
this patch is an improvement over Marco's are a fiction of your own
damn imagination.  So the only one who should get a life is you; I
asked a polite question, you respond with throwing rocks at me.

   > 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.

I reread your message, nowhere did you state that this should be
committed, but you also nowhere stated that this _SHOULD NOT_ be
committed.  So by all normal non-nealian logic any patch that gets
submitted should be assumed that it is going to be committed; unless
otherwise stated.  Which is a fact that you did not state.

   > 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.

Well boo hoo frigging hoo, I missed a little snippet, I'm human.
Guess that you are not; since you can't just _politely_ point out the
fact that I missed this bit of information.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]