udhcp missing prototypes

Mike Frysinger vapier at gentoo.org
Thu Apr 20 06:34:31 UTC 2006


On Wednesday 19 April 2006 20:01, Rob Landley wrote:
> <snip>

you really enjoy writing e-mails huh

> > I avoid touching dhcp at all because then there would be some strange
> > obligation put upon me to fix some out-of-tree version I actively don't
> > care about.  I'm not going there.  It can rot for all I care.
>
> Perhaps that's what you're talking about?  That was a declaration I was
> ignoring it, not removing it.  I didn't have the luxury of ignoring parts
> of busybox after I became maintainer.

your stance has generally been that you wont work on anything unless it's done 
your way.  you didnt want to touch udhcp because it was located in two places 
and you couldnt be bothered to copy files before doing a commit.  now it's 
located in one place but since it doesnt have 'busybox' in its path name, you 
feel that makes it evil and thus you wont work with it.

> Did you take that as an indication that I planned to remove ifup and ifdown
> too?  (Hint: I don't.  There are people who use them, and I respect that. 
> I just don't happen to be one of them.)

pointless flamebait

> The first ultimatum that you ignored:
> http://busybox.net/lists/busybox/2006-March/019521.html

if by "ignored" you mean you didnt read my follow up, then sure, i guess i 
ignored you
http://busybox.net/lists/busybox/2006-March/019523.html

> My "ok, I'll bork the hell out of the external package by doing every
> possible way to tie it to busybox until you revert this mess" approach:
> http://busybox.net/lists/busybox/2006-March/019598.html

not really sure what that translates to

> > I was happy to leave this thing alone indefinitely and focus on higher
> > priority things, until my hand was forced.  But I can't even build with
> > the tree spliced together like this, and even if I could it's obnoxious. 
> > I objected at the time.  For example, if I clean up the code to use
> > bb_getopt_ulflags() I break some unrelated project.  That's evil, and
> > it's NOT MY PROBLEM.
> >
> > My objections were ignored, and now I'm making the problem _GO_AWAY_. 
> > And the since only way to do that is write a new one, that's what I'm
> > doing.

objected at what time ?  the idea of getting rid of the duplicated 
repositories was first mentioned in Sep 05 which you didnt really make any 
comments ... after that, it wasnt on the mailing list until *after* it was 
done; i chatted with Eric on irc on the topic late in 05 and i dont recall 
you being there to object

> You say that I was "clearly all for killing udhcp before" you deleted
> busybox's copy of it.

i must be mistaken then by your general reluctance to touch the code.

> I plan to run at least the new dhcp client I'm writing on my laptop as the
> default way it gets an address, so that if I plug into anything it can't
> work with I'll be motivated to _fix_ it.

have fun.  i dont see how or why this should cause udhcp to be removed from 
busybox.
-mike



More information about the busybox mailing list