6.1 release branch
gschafer at zip.com.au
Sat Apr 2 15:38:12 PST 2005
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> However, for such a trivial one-liner, I'd
> prefer to go with Greg's `sed' (or a variation thereof) - unless he's
> going to claim rights over it like he did with a previous effort.
Don't be ridiculous. Last time it was a question of attribution. LFS has a
poor record of crediting contributions. Just look at the list of past
editors who were removed from the Acknowledgments section of recent LFS
releases. You would never get away with this if LFS were a software
package like GCC or Glibc, instead of a written document. Yes, kudos to
Gerard for trying to rectify the problem. But I'm getting off-topic now..
This time Ken has already pointed out my post via Google. It's an
obvious fix anyway. No problem. End of story. For the record, I submitted
this e2fsprogs fix to upstream but haven't received any confirmation back
yet. I might also submit it to the SF bugtracker but my last effort there
has also gone unanswered..
More information about the lfs-dev