Re: rename functions as they conflict with glibc
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> wrote:
> > Here is the recent original code:
> >
> > ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/
> >
> > Please upgrade all related code at RedHat's site as soon as possible and stop
> > publishing the code you are currently distributing.
> >
>
> Redhat and other gave up your version because you were too difficult to
> work with. Since your willingness to accept other views as having merit
> hasn't changed, neither will the decision to use a hack on you old code.
> The problem is of your making.
No, Redhat is a victim of a non-cooperative downstream that started a
slander campaign against me and my software.
The people wo are not part of the slander campaign know that I am a very
cooperative person and that reported bugs are typpically fixed in less time
than e.g. the Debian bug tracking system needs to accept the report. As a
result, there ar no known bugs in the original software.
On the other side, there are currently approx. 150 unique bugs if you sum up all
entries from all bug tracking systems for the fork. These bugs are waiting since
more than two years for being fixed....
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Reply to: