svn commit: trunk/busybox: coreutils include

[Mike Frysinger]

On Sunday 07 May 2006 21:50, Rob Landley wrote:
> And yet it wasn't resolved.  Now it is.

nothing is resolved, dont candy coat it

> Because people who weren't me were continually resyncing them, which was
> fine as long as somebody else had to worry about resolving conflicts.

funny, there were no conflicts

> I was happy to leave it alone, before it got deleted.  The symlinked
> directory is not something I will ever ship.

and yet again, you're making a big stink over the technical way of how it was 
inserted

when the tarball is shipped, the result *will have nothing related to the way 
the repo was linked in* in it

> 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

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

> 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
-mike