Hi,
On Apr 15, 11:03am, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Why do you expect to get bugreports for a correct man page?
Ehm, no, manpage naming binaries differently than they are named in filesystem
is not actually correct.
> My suggestions are always correct. The problem is that you did missunderstand
Yeah, particularily the one where you suggested to use tooling from outside
distribution. Do i have to dig it up?
> Also note that some tim eago, I told you why a makefilesystem that includes a
No, I don't quite recall it.
> complete dependency list and that controls the calling of ./configure has
> problems to iplement make clean from the makefile system (except if there is
> a
> way to reverse the action order for a specific target). For this reason, all
> distributions come with a ".clean" shell script.
As if putting those rm-s in makefile was some sort of black magic.
I might also point out that this is not really documented anywhere (the only
mentions of .clean anywhere relate to a very specific task of creating
packages for SVr4 and is added relatively recently, in 1.5a81).
I might also point out that with a well written buildprocess the clean target
is as simple as doing a SINGLE rm. No need to trace anything.
> In order to avoid such missunderstandings, it is good practice to foster good
> relations with the author and just ask in case things are not 100% clear.
Obviously this works much better when the upstream author's attitude is far
from telling everyone and everywhere that everything they do is wrong.
Best regards,
Pawel
--
(___) | Pawel Wiecek ----------------- Coven / Svart --------------------- |
< o o > | http://www.coven.vmh.net/ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GSM:
+48603240006 |
\ ^ / | GPG/PGP info in message headers * [ Debian GNU/Linux developer ] |
(") | * * Reality is for people who lack imagination. * * |
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
