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]

Reply via email to