Re: m68k not a release arch for etch; status in testing, future plans?

[Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net>]

Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org> writes:

>> Your message was deliberately misleading, designed to suggest that
>> there had been a fix in for a while (even if "not that old yet"), when
>> in fact, the patch was posted *after* my message.
>
> What the hell is your problem? Yes, the patch is _one_ day old and instead 
> of thanking me for finally fixing this problem, I get this?

I have no idea if you have fixed the problem or not; I'm not the
package maintainer and I haven't examined the patch.

But you attempted to trick people, by pretending that the patch was
already there before my email.  You wanted to make me look bad, as if
I was bringing up an example where there was a patch in the bug-log.
Since your claim is that m68k suffers because maintainers ignore
patches in the bug logs, you concocted an example right away.

Your message gave no hint that you in fact posted the patch in
*response* to my message, and indeed, since you're trying to blame
maintainers for ignoring m68k patches, it fits right in line with your
general attack to concoct just such a case, when in fact, the opposite
was the case.

Thomas