On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 02:37:03AM +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>I have some surprisingly good statistics. In ALT Linux Sisyphus
>(repository with 5000+ source packages) percentage of packages
>
> You have fallen for the trap [...]
It's full name (ALT GNU/*/Linux Sisyphus) is too long
Well, for you that's true since you read info-gnu as well. I
expect that this applies to an extremely small minority of Debian
users though.
I think that the amount of people who read the NEWS file is about the
same as the amount of people who read info-gnu. :(
Cheers.
___
%% "Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
ps> It's not clear to me what the problem is with having a late beta
ps> of GNU make installed into Debian unstable. If these changes are
ps> going to be in the next release would it really have made much
ps> difference to wait for that?
It's not clear to me what the problem is with having a late beta of
GNU make installed into Debian unstable. If these changes are
going to be in the next release would it really have made much
difference to wait for that?
The problem is that you don't get the chance to read the NEWS f
%% "Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
pds> I still believe the change is localized and not widespread enough
pds> to justify supporting both behaviors... hopefully I'm not
pds> whistling past the graveyard.
ams> I don't know if I should take your word for it, or if I should
I have some surprisingly good statistics. In ALT Linux Sisyphus
(repository with 5000+ source packages) percentage of packages
You have fallen for the trap that Linux is a operating system, which
it is not; it is simply a kernel. The operating system you are
actually refering to is an vari
On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 01:51:50AM +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> I'll think about it some more maybe compile a bunch of stuff with the
> make from alpha, still a bit pissed at the fool who added a beta make
> to Debian since the old Makefile do make sense IMHO.
I have some surprisingly good sta
I still believe the change is localized and not widespread enough
to justify supporting both behaviors... hopefully I'm not whistling
past the graveyard.
I don't know if I should take your word for it, or if I should compile
lots of things (old and new) with the beta make and report what
%% "Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
ams> Thanks for the detailed explanation, but the thing with the
ams> backslash/newline stuff is that it breaks old Makefiles, and it
ams> makes new Makefiles not work with old makes; it is also hard (and
ams> might make it even more unrea
At this point I'm not considering backing out this change. First,
GNU make absolutely _IS_ an implementation of POSIX standard for
make: you only have to read as far as the second paragraph in the
GNU make manual:
> GNU make conforms to section 6.2 of IEEE Standard 1003.2-1992
>
%% "Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
ams> Please revert the POSIX_ME_HARDER change of backslash-newline
ams> sequences are handled. There is absolutley no reason to break
ams> this. Lots of old Makefile use it, and so do many new ones. If
ams> one wishes to follow POSIX, o
Hey,
Please revert the POSIX_ME_HARDER change of backslash-newline
sequences are handled. There is absolutley no reason to break this.
Lots of old Makefile use it, and so do many new ones. If one wishes
to follow POSIX, one can make this the default setting when
POSIX_ME_HARDER (usually known as
12 matches
Mail list logo
