Luke Mewburn wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 10:19:00AM -0400, Chris Ross wrote:
>   |   Yeah, but that takes much wind out of the sails of saying
>   | that you can cross-build from other operating systems.
>   | "..if and only if you have a mkisofs that's new enough
>   | installed on your host operating system.".  :-/
> 
> Please don't exaggerate the situation; you can cross build
> a full release without mkisofs 2.0.  You just can't build a
> bootable iso-image using the make targets in etc/Makefile.
> 
> build.sh doesn't even currently support building an ISO
> image specifically because we don't have in-tree support
> for creation of iso9660 file systems.

   True enough.  And your complaint is valid.  But, I would
argue strongly that building an ISO *should be* part of
building a "full release" (at least for platforms that it's
reasonable to do so on).  As you note, the reason this isn't
done currently is the lack of mkisofs.  It's just an annoying
chicken-and-egg type problem...  Sorry for overstating/whining
about the problem.

> I think that _I_ define what my priorities are regarding what to
> work on in my own time for this _volunteer_ project.  Especially
> for a minor feature request which has an easy workaround at this
> time.

   Oh, I'm very sorry if you took that personally.  I did not
mean at all that *you* should make it a higher priority.
And, if the decision about what to put into the core
distribution, and whether or not to build a mkisofs in
src/tools is your decision, than I'm very sorry.  I didn't
know that.  I presumed it was a community decision (or at
least a fair group of "core people"), and was asking that
the priority assigned by them be raised.  I apologize very
much if my comment was taken as a personal attack, or an
attempt to suggest that my views/opinions are more important
than yours.  I do not at all feel that way...

                            - Chris