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]