Planning for Cross-LFS/Multi-Architecture 7.x Release

Matthew Burgess matthew at
Sun Apr 24 01:27:06 PDT 2005

Greg Schafer wrote:

<snipped loads of stuff I can't comment on because I've never run into 
the issue, so have to rely on others reports of what is/was going on>

> Not only is the text wrong, it's some of the poorest English language I've
> read in a long while and is guaranteed to make any English teacher cringe.

Agreed, it could use some rewording.  Of course, instead of flaming LFS 
community members (see below) you could have actually provided a patch 
or even simply suggested appropriate wording.  From previous experience, 
  I'm sadly not surprised at which you opted to provide though :(

> Sorry for coming across as harsh, but you as an LFS staff member and
> someone who continually posts as if you know everything when you clearly
> do not, left yourself wide open here.

Your suggestions didn't come across as harsh to me, Greg.  You simply 
stated what you thought was wrong/inaccurate and why.  Like I said 
above, I can't take those comments on board as I can't verify it on my 
own PC.  I would like to say though, that I was led to believe that 
chapter 5 glibc built fine, but with SELinux functionality.  When 
compiling chapter 6 glibc, it thought that the SELinux headers would 
therefore be available and hence fail.

> Please stick to what you're good
> at and go back to IRC where you can be a hero. Recall that you started
> with this inflammatory tone in the other thread. I'll finish it.

I didn't spot any inflammatory tone until this point, which was 
completely uncalled for.  Whilst your technical comments are more than 
welcome here, these constant attempts to start a flamewar are certainly 
not.  If you're unable to provide technical comments without derogatory 
comments toward members of the LFS community I'd rather you didn't post 
at all.



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list