Re: FW: Error compiling gnustep-startup-0.11.0 using gcc 4.0.0

[Alex Perez]

Nicola Pero wrote:
> > > > Does this seem like a reasonable solution? Considering the code 
> > > > isn't supposed to be used anyway? Or perhaps we should really make 
> > > > good on our promise to depreciate this code?
> > >
> > >
> > > I think it's a harmless change.
> > >
> > > It's a long time since I looked at the mframe stuff though ... so I'm 
> > > not sure we can simply remove all of it (which would be nice), and my 
> > > inclination is to just leave it in place and accept patches ... 
> > > until/unless someone gets time to look at it carefully.
> >
> >
> > Can you give an actual rationale for why you feel mframe should not be 
> > removed, given that it is deprecated and seems to cause compilation 
> > problems with EVERY new minor (not sub-minor) GCC version? Honestly, 
> > I'm curious to hear why you think we should just keep band-aiding the 
> > problem incessantly when it's the source of a lot of BS, and probably 
> > also a reason why some people try GNUstep, fail to get it to 
> > work/compile, and then give up and go use something else that functions.
>
>
> Alex, you need to work on your communication skills.

Once again, you need to stop assuming there's hostility where there is none.

> I don't know about others, but to me your post looks arrogant and 
> aggressive ... and out of place.

GNUstep doesn't compile with GCC4 because of mframe, AFAIR...is it 
arrogant or aggressive to say that I expect that it should?

> Did you actually read the post that you are attacking ?

Of course, I read every word multiple times, but the rationale is 
insufficient. If it was sufficient, I would not have requested further 
elaboration.

> You jumped in out of nowhere with a pushy and arrogant post attacking 
> Richard, but it looks like you didn't really read the post you were 
> commenting on.

People jump out of nowhere all the time on ML's. That is the point of 
them. If you don't want people giving their opinions, don't discuss 
things on a public ML.

> Boy, you need to relax.  Sit down, turn on some music, have a tea.  When 
> you're a normal person again (and not a fanatical angry werewolf looking 
> for the next victim), you may want to apologize to Richard for your 
> post, then make a mental note of trying to be a more friendly and 
> cooperative poster in the future.

I'm not anything of the sort, only in your head. The fact that you see 
me as such does not mean it is so. I have nothing to apologize to 
Richard for, as I did not attack Richard in any way, only asked him to 
elaborate, which is a perfectly reasonable request.

> We are all interested in your opinions and in your help / suggestions, 
> but unless you change the way you communicate with people, it's going to 
> be very difficult to work with you.  It's impossible to discuss with you 
> if you post with such tone.

The tone is only frustration. While you claim to be interested in my 
opinion, the fact that you wrote this long overreactive rant on my 
(supposedly) rude behavior seems to claim otherwise, in reality.

> Also, angry rants don't change things; they usually make your 
> suggestions look really bad instead -- they tend to polarize the 
> audience on the opposite suggestion.  Good manners are taught for a good 
> reason ...

It's not an angry rant. Get over it. If others misinterpret or read too 
much into a very literal question and concern, it's not an issue with me.

I really wish you would stop attacking me for nothing. It's a waste of 
your time, it's a waste of my time to sit here defending myself for 
addressing a perfectly reasonable question/concern.

Alex Perez
Mr. Nice Guy :P