>If the user is used to running
>"rbconf", he/she will be confused either way. He will not know what
>"re-run configure" means, as all he knows is "rbconf". When presented
>the solution "type ../tools/configure" he will think that this is some
>new secret Rockbox magic that we never told him about.
The sensible option then, seems to be leave the
shortcuts for those who are already infected, and
change the docs so as not to lure any more into this trap?
>>Well. Every positive thing itemised in favour of The DevKit is
>>stripped from your replies; solutions to problems are eschewed and we
>>are nowhere near a balanced set of reasoning designed to manufacture
>>an amicable solution.
>Yes, I'm sorry about not commenting on the positive side of the devkit.
Appreciated. Thank you.
>It did open a door for the less experienced users back when we didn't
>have the cygwin packages.
Them's the words: "open the door for inexperienced users"
That should have been my choice of words when
talking about the dilemma over whether to include gdb or not.
Because I do not understand...
May I ask why rockbox.org holds cygwin packages
that are nothing to do with compiling Rockbox?
If there's some abstract reason for it, then why
not maintain the comprehensive install AND a Rockbox install?
If the answer is "dupe files", then why not
simply hard-link only the subset of directories required?
Have you ever noted just how many useless chunks
of cygwin come down when you select the options listed on the wiki page?
>>and the inferred 'ploy to undermine Rockbox' was an hallucination.
>I don't know what youre talking about.
Session Start (zelazny.freenode.net:LinusN): Fri Apr 16 10:25:44 2004
[10:33] <LinusN> is the Bluechip/Cyborg Systems
name connected to any supposedly illegal activity?
[10:34] <BC> not to my knowledge
[10:35] <LinusN> thing is, if we write Cyborg
Systems or Bluechip in the credits, we don't want
to drag the Rockbox name in any dirt, so to speak
[10:35] <BC> Paranoia reigns
[10:35] <BC> ...who said that?
[10:36] <LinusN> Björn, in a recent discussion in the matter
>>Or are we just hanging on to the misplaced hostilities those things
>>created such a long time ago in the past?
>Why can't you have a technical discussion without making it personal?
Am I wrong for thinking that it would have been
nice to have received an email saying
"Hey, BC, The DevKit needs updating - do you plan
to continue maintaining it? If not, can you make
it clear that it is obselete, or maybe remove it
from your web page altogether please ...it's
causing a lot of support issues for us as it stands."
rather than simply read on a group one day that
my work has been deemed "deprecated"?
Above, you apologised for <snip>ing all the
positive benefits of my efforts ...that seemed
very personal to me ...so can WE avoid the "you
started it" 'finger pointing' please?
Received on Mon Feb 13 01:54:31 2006