[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Lynx-dev] Re: non-pkgsrc emacs or clone

From: Charles Swiger
Subject: Re: [Lynx-dev] Re: non-pkgsrc emacs or clone
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 13:26:57 -0400


I'd hate to intrude if you guys intend to argue each other senseless, but there are more and less productive ways of going about anything.

Arguing that a change is better simply because it is "standards compliant" is pretty silly, given how many standards there are to choose from. A change that causes multiple regressions (I've heard emacs and wget mentioned, as well as lynx) and gets fixed by projects switching to gmake rather than the stock system make probably wasn't a good idea to begin with.

Will this problem go away if someone reverts the Makefile changes so that .h is listed in .SUFFIXES?

On May 25, 2005, at 11:59 AM, Todd Vierling wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2005, Thomas Dickey wrote:
(In more recent version branches of NetBSD and other OS's, system .h files
have become progrssively more strict about standards conformance.

There must be something nice I could find to say about NetBSD's header,
but offhand, all I can recall are their problems (incomplete,

Hm, can you say "standards conformance" again?

Please keep your (likely Linux-advocacy based) flamebait at home. The rest of us are working with third party software quite successfully on NetBSD, and it's unfortunate that you feel the need to have an unfounded temper
tantrum about it.

Never assume that someone who disagrees with you doesn't know what they are talking about: I'm pretty sure that Thomas Dickey has been working on X11 since before Linux was invented. I don't mean to take sides, here, though: I didn't see any PR's submitted by "Dickey" in the NetBSD GNATS database, either.

Criticism is pretty cheap, diffs and working code are harder.
Or am I out of line, wanting to see a little more code and a bit less argument? :-)


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]