Re: [patch] PH tells crap about GMAKE (Was: Re: svn commit: r340018 - head/textproc/scew)
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 09:23:51AM -0700, Warren Block wrote: > Attached is a quick editing pass. I have not tested it for building yet, > and edited the diff directly, so it has some a new blank line. Look fine to me; I knew that my version was overly wordily. :) Please commit (unless others have any objections). ./danfe ___ freebsd-doc@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-doc To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-doc-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
First Page In Google
Hello, We are a fast growing company based in India with primary focus on Search Engine Optimzation(SEO), Link building Services. We have a dedicated team of 130 professionals to serve you in building appropriate links and developing SEO. We are working as an outsourced vendor for many reputed SEO agency based in USA, UK, Canada and Australia. Other Affordable Search Engine Optimizations Services Provided By Us:- 1. SEO (Search Engine Optimization) 2. Link Building 3. Press Release 4. Article Submission/Article Writing 5. Blog Submissions/Writing 6. Directory Submission 7. Social Media Optimization. Please let me know If you are Interested in our services. Note: Kindly let me know your phone number and best timing along with time zone to give you a call to discuss more. Kind Regards, Ishan Awasthi ___ freebsd-doc@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-doc To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-doc-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: [patch] PH tells crap about GMAKE (Was: Re: svn commit: r340018 - head/textproc/scew)
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014, Warren Block wrote: On Fri, 17 Jan 2014, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: Please consider attached patch. It is not a polished gem, and most likely would need a review and wordsmithing from doc@ guys. While here I've also standardized the spelling of "okay", and fixed couple of grammar nits. These changes are not related to GMAKE ones, and probably should be committed separately, but I'm not splitting the diff for personal convenience, sorry. :) Attached is a quick editing pass. I have not tested it for building yet, and edited the diff directly, so it has some a new blank line. I would like to be more specific in this part: Quite often, a specific implementation is required, like GNU make, or legacy FreeBSD make. I think that should say: Quite often, a specific implementation is required, like GNU make (gmake), or legacy FreeBSD make (fmake). Is that correct? Thanks! ___ freebsd-doc@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-doc To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-doc-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
