"Pawel Wiecek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
PLEASE FIX YOUR MAILER!!!!!
Your mailer repeatedly bastardizes the mail address for Mika
> On Apr 15, 11:18pm, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > > Ehm, no, manpage naming binaries differently than they are named in
> > > filesystem
> > > is not actually correct.
> > The star man page names the binaries the same way they are in the
> > filesystem.
> > Where do you see problems?
>
> You seem to forget that the binaries names are changed so they do not clash
> with other packages.
I see no name clashes....please explain!
> > > Yeah, particularily the one where you suggested to use tooling from
> > > outside
> > > distribution. Do i have to dig it up?
> > ???? I have no idea what you are talking about.
>
> Then I'll have to dig this up in my archives.
>
> > If you believe that you are clever enough to write a working "make clean"
> > for
> > the schily makefilesystem - please send a patch, you are welcome! You could
> > make
>
> No, I'm not going to fix either your makefilesystem nor automake, bjam or any
> other buildprocess I consider unnecessarily complicated. Also because doing
Good point, but why then do you create unneeded complex wrappers around a simple
and easy to use make system like the Schily Makefilesystem?
Just a note: Do not complain claim that you know better if you really
don't (I asume that you would be able to share your ideas in case you had a
solution....).
If you have no solution, simply stop telling me that I am wrong.
> > > Obviously this works much better when the upstream author's attitude is
> > > far
> > > from telling everyone and everywhere that everything they do is wrong.
> > Sorry, I am just telling you how to do things right. You may follow this
> > advise
>
> No, not at all.
> Just a few samples:
>
> | I recommend to through away the sources
I send this advise to you after you appeared unwillling to fix a bug you
created with a bad patch made by you. The way you then replied looks rude to me
and I hope that you will not continue your rude habbit. If you do not intend to
be rude, please read the mail you write before you send it and rewrite it.
Please relax and note that the kind of problems you created when calling
gdiff -urN old new > file
could be simply avoided if you just had a look into the resultant file....
before using it.
NOTE: If you do not throw away your current source tree and then start with
the clean star-1.5 source, you will definitely end up in a source tree that
is not working correctly.
The file star_fat.c is _not_ part of the source. If you create it (as you
currently do), bypassing the official make rules, you hose up the build
process.
The Schily makefilesystem has been designed to allow a compilation _without_
manual configuration on a large number of different platforms. This includes
Linux (Linux has been explicitely tested). If you believe you need to change
or patch something, you should blame your build environment instead of blaming
the star source. I am willing to help you to find what you are doing wrong and
to fix your build environment, but I cannot do that if you are not open to
listen to me.
In general, try to be more relaxed. I am always open to anyone who is open to
new experiences....
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
