[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
Mach.
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.