[CentOS-devel] glibc x86_64 vs. i686 file conflict when building from sources

Douglas McClendon dmc.centos at filteredperception.org
Thu Nov 25 22:02:44 EST 2010


On 11/25/2010 07:04 PM, Jerry Amundson wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Karanbir Singh<mail-lists at karan.org>  wrote:
>> On 25/11/2010 22:37, Dag Wieers wrote:
>>>> and this isnt the rebuilding-rhel-devel-list
>>> It's the closest there is.
>>
>> that does not make it right or welcome. I made a polite request
>
> In my opinion, it's both right and welcome. This list is my *one*
> connection to this technical "circle". If I had OP's problem, this is
> certainly the first list I would look to for an answer. Thinking of
> the definition of CentOS, if you want no part of a
> rebuilding-rhel-devel-list, then maybe you should not be on *this*
> list, or just not be *rebuilding* rhel in the first place, hmm?
>
> Further, you're "polite request" sounds more like passive-aggressive


As an observer who has been entirely guilty of being poisonly dramatic 
on other fedora-lists, but who has hopefully matured, I have to agree 
with this.  On the other hand I also have to say that Dag's responses 
were equivalently thoughtless in regard to actually building up the 
community, instead of just inciting KS to dig deeper into his position.

On the other other hand, that doesn't mean I think those 'thoughtless' 
comments were wrong.  I.e. if KS really does feel that strongly, 
moderation is the real answer that would facilitate a community without 
these sorts of non-productive, community-poisoning heal-digging-in drama 
fests.

$0.02...

-dmc




> hogwash, and it could have just as easily been stated at the very
> beginning when OP stated very openly, "(Posting on this list instead
> of a RHEL list as even though strictly speaking this is a RHEL issue I
> expect CentOS developers to be familiar
> with the problem I'm running into.)".
>
>>>> I'm guessing you missed the bit where I had previously confirmed that we
>>>> didn't have any such problem.
>
> Ah yes, the Royal "We". FWIW, I missed that "bit" also - I see no such
> statement in this thread.
>
>>> Which basicly means the thread was fine, until you got fed up with where
>>> it was going. Not sure why me mentioning the mock builds triggered you.
>>
>> I am guessing you are just blowing hot air here, and haven't even looked
>> at this the rest of this thread have you ?
>
> "Guessing" as to what each, or any, list member has read, or not read,
> is both wrong and unwelcome.
>
>>> Maybe we ought to make the mailinglists moderated so you can select what
>>> doesn't trigger you ?
>>
>> Or you should stop feeling so insecure and thinking everyone is out to
>> get you. I've almost always made requests to maintain sanity, not only
>> on this list but plenty of other places as well.
>
> The latter comment may fit in at alt.therapy.centos, but here it
> sounds judgemental and controlling.
> 1. Delete the bothersome e-mail.
> 2. Move on.
>
> That said, I segue into a "Thank you". :-)
> No really, I mean it. I'm nearing the end of our Thanksgiving holiday
> here in the US, and I am again thinking of the time and effort of so
> many people that makes CentOS what it is - sincerely, "Thank You" to
> everyone. Just please, don't contribute *emotional* time and
> effort.....
>
> jerry
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS-devel mailing list
> CentOS-devel at centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel



More information about the CentOS-devel mailing list