Re: [libgpiod] help with GPIOSET_INTERACTIVE

[Kent Gibson <warthog618@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Dec 29, 2023 at 10:43:16PM -0600, Seamus de Mora wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 29, 2023 at 8:21 PM Kent Gibson <warthog618@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > That option ('--enable-gpioset-interactive') seems to have gotten the
> > > job done. I had to back out of 'libgpiod-2.1/tools' to
> > > '~/libgpiod-2.1', and let './autogen.sh' take care of the '#define'...
> > > instead of me trying to add it manually to 'gpioset.c' via '#define
> > > GPIOSET_INTERACTIVE'.  I do have **all** the packages you listed below
> > > installed, so why my manual addition didn't work is still a mystery to
> > > me - but not one worth fretting over.
> >
> > If you want to change build options then you need to re-run autogen.sh to
> > regenerate the Makefiles.
> >
> > The option is mentioned in both TOOLS section of the README (but I note
> > has a typo that needs to be fixed) adjacent to the interactive example,
> > and the configure help, which is itself mentioned in the README:
> >
> > $ ./configure --help
> >
>
> >   --enable-gpioset-interactive
> >                           enable gpioset interactive mode [default=no]
>
> >
> > That is not enabled by default as some platforms lack, or want to avoid
> > including, libedit.
> >
> > > Thanks for your help!   :)
> >
> > And thank you for the SE un-upvote and downvote!
>
> Since you brought that up again: I did do an "un-upvote" - but not a
> downvote (don't even know if that's possible).

It is, and happened at exactly the same time as your un-upvote.
Weird that.

> And I think you know
> the reason I did: your haughty replies to my attempts at
> communication.

None of which had anything to with the quality of that answer, yet you
negged it anyway.  That is called spite.

> I really like to try to get along with everyone, but I
> will admit I do not suffer arrogance well.

As I have a very low tolerance for BS.

> After reviewing things, I
> will say that I may have "crossed a line" with my use of the term
> "can't be bothered"... I've used this term for much of my life, but
> never realized it implied laziness until I looked it up yesterday.

In what universe does "can't be bothered" imply anything BUT laziness
or complete indifference?
AIUI you are from the UK so you know that damn well.

> And
> so for that - I apologize. If you'd like to now "bury the hatchet",
> I'm good with that. If not - that's OK too.
>

Burying the hatchet sounds like a splendid idea, but actions count more
than words.

Cheers,
Kent.