From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Pip Cet Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Pure space Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 13:26:08 +0000 Message-ID: <87o75ri8lu.fsf@protonmail.com> References: <87cym8jngk.fsf@protonmail.com> <864j7j65b1.fsf@gnu.org> <874j7jk06d.fsf@protonmail.com> <86bk1r2zj7.fsf@gnu.org> <87sev3idl0.fsf@protonmail.com> <86zfpb1edk.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="32772"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Aug 17 15:56:19 2024 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1sfJul-0008N4-5t for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 17 Aug 2024 15:56:19 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sfJtq-00024z-Fj; Sat, 17 Aug 2024 09:55:22 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sfJRi-0005u6-Ur for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 17 Aug 2024 09:26:18 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-40131.protonmail.ch ([185.70.40.131]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sfJRg-0004DB-Tv; Sat, 17 Aug 2024 09:26:18 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail3; t=1723901174; x=1724160374; bh=leuMI5nj9qu/jFeYjqYVskOxiy2YukMC+Kx3x116Ebs=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID: Message-ID:BIMI-Selector; b=ca8kUHa85tTEV7l21zX8LQAdOARwyAAoLHPkFP8oklgcOUOH9l47TYCSXDaj7NoNH dKZ8hGBvbsdDlcjT/rIDEjXYb7JY6mv7bqcSXXa/ST6bKUc7wxzj7irhNMqk22Do6U W5/0G7u/v9A5+qYAlt5EtM2v/NMT4EnU8OSR9cUDoCy8zeA4V5VLEc+yp4m5g+in7M tPJvHFG6HTDgPDE0lavoG0oKg50T5rFl2sPW/m2m+Sz+HE8aSlBxhJsVDOUhfhKcBZ GRR/Ia5FIqKppA77u2TJEv3Si7f9r0+SDnKa37UAhPfRe5jbk67ILYA84Uetd6MbQy GIO4oQFY6bCTQ== In-Reply-To: <86zfpb1edk.fsf@gnu.org> Feedback-ID: 112775352:user:proton X-Pm-Message-ID: f32a6ee847b03bb27291ef26dca85b6e54d4181d Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.70.40.131; envelope-from=pipcet@protonmail.com; helo=mail-40131.protonmail.ch X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 09:55:20 -0400 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:322853 Archived-At: "Eli Zaretskii" writes: > And I don't think I care for your hints about my alleged lies. The > fact that we disagree doesn't mean that I intentionally tell lies, it > just means we have different perspectives, different experiences, and > different responsibilities here. I think that warrants a separate response: I'm sorry I caused offense there. I think you're often inconsistent, but I don't believe that means you're ever lying. >> IOW, if we count all the complexity and maintenance work that purespace >> requires as costs of keeping the unexec builds, then we should drop >> unexec ASAP. > > I agree, and urge you to try to convince the single person who so far > objects to removing unexec, instead of wasting your time on trying to > change my mind on that. Indeed, that seems the best way forward. > I saw no patch attached to the original message (nor any other message > in this thread). Am I lying again? No, this time it's me being inconsistent. Patch attached (this time, hopefully). Pip