sysdeps/i386/... vs sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/i386...

[Ulrich Drepper]

Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> Bollocks, and you know it since if I was to add the same hack in
> sysdeps/mach/hurd/i386 and use it in sysdeps/i386 (in exactly the same
> was as Jakub did!) you'd be screaming ontop of your lungs that I
> should fix my patch, 

Just say the word and I remove you from the list.  If you don't like the
way it works, then you simply should stop.  If you get told that a file,
which is shared between Linux and hurd, has to be changed to work on
Linux then this is because there are actually people interested in this
and you can easily determine what has to be done.  For all this hurd
stuff there is no equivalent and therefore it is up to the handful of
people who have interest to do the work.  There cannot be a penalty for
adding Linux code just because the code is used on hurd as well since
the extra work has such a ridiculously small value.   You chose to be
different, so you pay the price.

-- 
➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View, CA ❖

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 251 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/attachments/20050524/32c87cbf/attachment.sig>