Subject: RE: autoconf(9) tree in an odd hardware arrangement
To: Marco Trillo <email@example.com>
From: De Zeurkous <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 11/24/2007 10:25:01
On Sat, November 24, 2007 10:11, Marco Trillo wrote:
> On 11/24/07, De Zeurkous <email@example.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, November 24, 2007 02:05, Michael Lorenz wrote:
>> > On Nov 23, 2007, at 20:04, De Zeurkous wrote:
>> >> Of course, the chance of having something progressive as this taken
>> >> seriously by the NetBSD term is probably near-zero. I'm willing to be
>> >> proven wrong, but realistically this is not going to happen.
>> > You're welcome to actually /write/ that code.
>> Just because I know the Right Thing to do, I need to implement it by
>> myself? Of course, you don't have an ethical obligation to do the Right
> But then, why are you complaining that 'is not goin to happen' if you
> do it?
Perhaps because I am extremely busy doing the Right Thing in other
projects? Or because one person, however gifted (and no, I'm not referring
to myself here), can't do every little job that happens to pop up?
> After all, it's you who thinks it's 'The Right Thing'.
You're free to contest it and/or offer alternatives. In fact, I'd be
delighted to receive a justified mental kick-in-the-ass from anyone. If
no-one has standing objections, I consider my theory accepted and I expect
an experimental implementation by the kernel developers to follow.
If anyone would like to take a look at my TODO, just ask and I'll put it
up and post a link to it. Perhaps it'll clarify things a bit. Then again,
% NetBSD, zsh, twm, nvi and roff junkie
From the fool file:
I don't see why the way people have historically partitioned disks should
dictate which kernels we build and distribute by default in the future.
--Darren Reed (darrenr@NetBSD.org), NetBSD tech-kern