As for the original (not of make) issue, confirming my [not a bug] posted on Wed, 20 Aug 2008 22:49:44 +0400 (<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>).
As for attitude expressed in your reply of Wed, 20 Aug 2008 02:57:21 +0400 (MSD) (<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>), it is pretty widespread in many free sofware mailing lists, fora, so commenting on it. You wrote: > Nice way to be helpful Followed it with assorted what was this, what was that questions, followed by > Are we supposed to just *guess*??! This may seem justified, and is at least understandable. And complying with all of this takes in most cases even more work than isolating (and even possibly fixing) the bug entirely on one's own. So the posting becomes pointless. Sadly, with this particular software issue it was exactly what happened. The lesson? In [[The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress]] (by Robert A. Heinlein) even a machine > Mike was designed, even before augmented, to answer questions > tentatively on insufficient data like you do > Mike was designed to operate on incomplete data. People are generally able to do that pretty well. This is reason for users posting issues (including me) to hope ones replying to exercise this ability, rather than request users to supply "complete data" ;-) . > You'd rather make people Posted message by itself makes people do nothing. Also note the detailed bug description (of Wed, 20 Aug 2008 22:43:38 +0400 (<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)) on <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (and proposed fix (of Wed, 20 Aug 2008 22:43:53 +0400 (<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)) on <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>). The bug is shown to be pretty "portable", its manifestation thus does not depend on (answers to) most of your [what was?] questions. Trying random automake input ((source) package) made perfect sense. _______________________________________________ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
