svn commit: trunk/busybox: coreutils include

[Rob Landley]

On Sunday 07 May 2006 11:17 pm, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> when the tarball is shipped, the result *will have nothing related to the
> way the repo was linked in* in it

I can guarantee you that, yes.

> > I ignored your ultimatum, you mean?  I thank you for the offer that I
> > spend my time to clean up the mess you made, but I respectfully decline. 
> > I'm not the one who broke it, and telling me to fix what you broke when
> > you'd only revert it again if I did the obvious fix (I.E. revert it back
> > to the separate directory you deleted, and worry about cleaning it up
> > when I get around to it) is silly.
>
> funny, the only person who i seemed to be broken for was you

*shrug*

> now you're reverting what's already been said ... you had problems with the
> fact the code wasnt being busyboxified, but you didnt want to do that
> work ... so instead you'd just cut it all out
> great solution

Yes.  I would.  I have repeatedly told you how much I dislike the external 
link.  You have repeatedly ignored me.

> > Obviously you don't understand why I object.  I've tried to explain
> > myself, but the fundamental issue is I won't ship an external project
> > that I can't make busybox-specific changes to without having to worry
> > about an angry email from some other project's maintainer because I broke
> > his stuff in a way that I don't build and test.
>
> the point is, you *werent* making fundamental changes

Yes, I was letting sleeping dogs lie.  But I've made a big one now.

> -mike

Rob
-- 
Never bet against the cheap plastic solution.