Re: The importance of civil communication on the list (was Re: Fucked up gnustep-make)
Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am 15.02.2007 um 15:32 schrieb Jeff Teunissen: Why, why WHY in the name of all that is good should anyone in a Free Software project act professional? Because we want GNUstep to be successful? Because that means GNUstep has to be used in professional environments for that? Because we gain, given GNUstep is used professionally, better code review, better stability, more applications developed using GNUstep, more testing, lesser bugs. I agree with Jeff Teunissen's view - professional is not necessarily a good thing. The professions used to be just things like lawyers, where the people express no view besides that what they were paid to express. I'm sure most of us can think of programmers like that and they're not much fun to work alongside IMO. They also drop to base insults and violence if they are frustrated, sometimes. I also agree with Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf's view in some ways. There are benefits if professionals do use it. I disagree with the seeming assumption that GNUsteppers have to impersonate IBM to get them to use it. I feel the best thing is for everyone to have fun, as far as possible. Which brings me to the start of this thread: would it really be much less fun if everyone tries not to curse on this list and apologises when they do? It's not a company, it's a hobby. That attitude of some currently shows in GNUstep. Some professional developers I talked to regard GNUstep as a playtoy of grown up boys because of the overall quality. If for instance the Apache guys had the same attitude nobody would (and could) use Apache (professionally). I've owned a company with one Apache guy and worked with another. They seem to be hackers working on stuff they love, more than professional. They swear sometimes. Artisanal would probably be a better term. I disagree with the comment on quality. I'm here, using GNUstep on all my computers, because the overall quality is better than its competitors. It ain't perfect, but it doesn't suck. Regards, -- MJR/slef ___ Discuss-gnustep mailing list Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
Re: The importance of civil communication on the list (was Re: Fucked up gnustep-make)
Gregory John Casamento [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] In my messages, no matter how pissed I am, [...] Pissed? Remember: don't drink and email. ;-) http://www.peevish.co.uk/slang/p.htm -- MJR/slef, trying to lighten stuff up on a Friday afternoon. http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ ___ Discuss-gnustep mailing list Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
Re: The importance of civil communication on the list (was Re: Fucked up gnustep-make)
On 15 Feb 2007, at 20:21, Gregory John Casamento wrote: In my messages, no matter how pissed I am, except in very extreme circumstances, I try to be always measured in my response on the public mailing list. I try to treat people with respect (even if I am sometimes a bit sarcastic), and I expect the same. http://www.linux.com/article.pl?sid=07/02/16/1937237 Perhaps if Linus switched to GNUstep he'd feel much calmer ;-) Cheers, Graham. ___ Discuss-gnustep mailing list Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
Re: The importance of civil communication on the list (was Re: Fucked up gnustep-make)
Gregory John Casamento wrote: All, While I realize this is an open forum, it makes us look really unprofessional to have profanity in the subject lines or in the messages. I would appreciate it if we all could please make our communications on the list free of profanity. Why, why WHY in the name of all that is good should anyone in a Free Software project act professional? It's not a company, it's a hobby. Nobody's getting paid by FSF to write GNUstep code. Should we all censor ourselves, putting more effort into the _protocol_ of communicating with each other than into the content of that communication? I'm not defending cbv's message; it was stupid, but understandable--people say stupid things when they're angry. Note, here, that I'm not calling Chris stupid, just angry. Should he not be angry? And if he is, why shouldn't he express it--because it was written by volunteers? Bah, you (generic you, not any particular person) don't work for him any more than he works for you. And hell, professionals argue too. I've seen fistfights break out over technical problems, because of a too-constrained atmosphere. When you're not allowed to express your strong feelings about technical matters, you have a situation where instead of resolving the technical problems you get building PERSONAL problems. People wind up hating each other over shit that only needs a quick argument to solve. Personal attacks are unacceptable no matter who does it, or in what situation...but technical stuff is fair game no matter what language is used about it. -- | Jeff Teunissen -=- Pres., Dusk To Dawn Computing -=- deek at d2dc.net | GPG: 1024D/9840105A 7102 808A 7733 C2F3 097B 161B 9222 DAB8 9840 105A | Core developer, The QuakeForge Project http://www.quakeforge.net/ | Specializing in Debian GNU/Linux http://www.d2dc.net/~deek/ ___ Discuss-gnustep mailing list Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
Re: The importance of civil communication on the list (was Re: Fucked up gnustep-make)
Jeff, Because when you start using profanity it's very easy for the conversation to immediately degenerate into insults and personal attacks. As far as I'm concerned, do whatever you like. I, like you am expressing my opinion, be that as it may. Later, GJC -- Gregory Casamento - Original Message From: Jeff Teunissen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: discuss-gnustep@gnu.org Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 9:32:59 AM Subject: Re: The importance of civil communication on the list (was Re: Fucked up gnustep-make) Gregory John Casamento wrote: All, While I realize this is an open forum, it makes us look really unprofessional to have profanity in the subject lines or in the messages. I would appreciate it if we all could please make our communications on the list free of profanity. Why, why WHY in the name of all that is good should anyone in a Free Software project act professional? It's not a company, it's a hobby. Nobody's getting paid by FSF to write GNUstep code. Should we all censor ourselves, putting more effort into the _protocol_ of communicating with each other than into the content of that communication? I'm not defending cbv's message; it was stupid, but understandable--people say stupid things when they're angry. Note, here, that I'm not calling Chris stupid, just angry. Should he not be angry? And if he is, why shouldn't he express it--because it was written by volunteers? Bah, you (generic you, not any particular person) don't work for him any more than he works for you. And hell, professionals argue too. I've seen fistfights break out over technical problems, because of a too-constrained atmosphere. When you're not allowed to express your strong feelings about technical matters, you have a situation where instead of resolving the technical problems you get building PERSONAL problems. People wind up hating each other over shit that only needs a quick argument to solve. Personal attacks are unacceptable no matter who does it, or in what situation...but technical stuff is fair game no matter what language is used about it. -- | Jeff Teunissen -=- Pres., Dusk To Dawn Computing -=- deek at d2dc.net | GPG: 1024D/9840105A 7102 808A 7733 C2F3 097B 161B 9222 DAB8 9840 105A | Core developer, The QuakeForge Project http://www.quakeforge.net/ | Specializing in Debian GNU/Linux http://www.d2dc.net/~deek/ ___ Discuss-gnustep mailing list Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep ___ Discuss-gnustep mailing list Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
Re: The importance of civil communication on the list (was Re: Fucked up gnustep-make)
Am 15.02.2007 um 15:32 schrieb Jeff Teunissen: Gregory John Casamento wrote: All, While I realize this is an open forum, it makes us look really unprofessional to have profanity in the subject lines or in the messages. I would appreciate it if we all could please make our communications on the list free of profanity. Why, why WHY in the name of all that is good should anyone in a Free Software project act professional? Because we want GNUstep to be successful? Because that means GNUstep has to be used in professional environments for that? Because we gain, given GNUstep is used professionally, better code review, better stability, more applications developed using GNUstep, more testing, lesser bugs. It's not a company, it's a hobby. That attitude of some currently shows in GNUstep. Some professional developers I talked to regard GNUstep as a playtoy of grown up boys because of the overall quality. If for instance the Apache guys had the same attitude nobody would (and could) use Apache (professionally). regards, lars ___ Discuss-gnustep mailing list Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
Re: The importance of civil communication on the list (was Re: Fucked up gnustep-make)
Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf wrote: Am 15.02.2007 um 15:32 schrieb Jeff Teunissen: [snip] Why, why WHY in the name of all that is good should anyone in a Free Software project act professional? Because we want GNUstep to be successful? Because that means GNUstep has to be used in professional environments for that? Because we gain, given GNUstep is used professionally, better code review, better stability, more applications developed using GNUstep, more testing, lesser bugs. Flat-out wrong. What is being referred to as Professionalism is something that human beings do not do on their own. Professionalism is the bloodless rote stupidity enforced in corporations from the top down, from a world where the whole job is about not giving anyone something bad to say about you. That's machinery, not people. Real boats rock. It's not a company, it's a hobby. That attitude of some currently shows in GNUstep. Some professional developers I talked to regard GNUstep as a playtoy of grown up boys because of the overall quality. If for instance the Apache guys had the same attitude nobody would (and could) use Apache (professionally). Wrong again. If the Apache guys weren't having fun, we'd all be using the NCSA (or even the crappy CERN) httpd. If a certain Finnish grad student wasn't having fun with his terminal program, we wouldn't have Linux...and whaddaya know, he had some flame wars along the way. There are technical flame wars aplenty in any healthy project, arguing (and often heatedly) about technical differences of opinion. And guess what? The projects aren't successful _despite_ this, but partially because of it. The best way to destroy a project is to make it seem like a job. -- | Jeff Teunissen -=- Pres., Dusk To Dawn Computing -=- deek at d2dc.net | GPG: 1024D/9840105A 7102 808A 7733 C2F3 097B 161B 9222 DAB8 9840 105A | Core developer, The QuakeForge Project http://www.quakeforge.net/ | Specializing in Debian GNU/Linux http://www.d2dc.net/~deek/ ___ Discuss-gnustep mailing list Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
Re: The importance of civil communication on the list (was Re: Fucked up gnustep-make)
On 15-Feb-07, at 1:18 PM, Jeff Teunissen wrote: Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf wrote: Am 15.02.2007 um 15:32 schrieb Jeff Teunissen: [snip] Why, why WHY in the name of all that is good should anyone in a Free Software project act professional? Because we want GNUstep to be successful? Because that means GNUstep has to be used in professional environments for that? Because we gain, given GNUstep is used professionally, better code review, better stability, more applications developed using GNUstep, more testing, lesser bugs. Flat-out wrong. What is being referred to as Professionalism is something that human beings do not do on their own. Professionalism is the bloodless rote stupidity enforced in corporations from the top down, from a world where the whole job is about not giving anyone something bad to say about you. That's machinery, not people. Real boats rock. It's not a company, it's a hobby. That attitude of some currently shows in GNUstep. Some professional developers I talked to regard GNUstep as a playtoy of grown up boys because of the overall quality. If for instance the Apache guys had the same attitude nobody would (and could) use Apache (professionally). Wrong again. If the Apache guys weren't having fun, we'd all be using the NCSA (or even the crappy CERN) httpd. If a certain Finnish grad student wasn't having fun with his terminal program, we wouldn't have Linux...and whaddaya know, he had some flame wars along the way. There are technical flame wars aplenty in any healthy project, arguing (and often heatedly) about technical differences of opinion. And guess what? The projects aren't successful _despite_ this, but partially because of it. The best way to destroy a project is to make it seem like a job. +1 to this. -- | Jeff Teunissen -=- Pres., Dusk To Dawn Computing -=- deek at d2dc.net | GPG: 1024D/9840105A 7102 808A 7733 C2F3 097B 161B 9222 DAB8 9840 105A | Core developer, The QuakeForge Project http:// www.quakeforge.net/ | Specializing in Debian GNU/Linux http://www.d2dc.net/ ~deek/ ___ Discuss-gnustep mailing list Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep !DSPAM:45d4a8ed369085833712176! ___ Discuss-gnustep mailing list Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
Re: The importance of civil communication on the list (was Re: Fucked up gnustep-make)
Thats true, anywhere, anytime, everybody just hates being insulted, that's human, it has nothing to do with professionalism. On Feb 15, 2007, at 8:35 PM, Stefan Bidigaray wrote: I think the issue here is not professionalism, but politeness. Really, how much more help/attention will you get, and this goes for anywhere you go, if you're insulting anyone? A great example is, step into any government building wanting something and insult (directly or indirectly) anyone in there, see how fast they'll solve your problem. Seriously, whatever happened to common courtesy? I understand that you might be angry, but imagine it this way, were cbv to not have expressed his anger in the way he did, would we even be having this conversation? How much more work/energy is his anger, unpoliteness, whatever word you want to use, is causing? Did it get anywhere? Just because you're polite doesn't mean you're being professional, I don't know why people try to lump them as being the same! Stefan ___ Discuss-gnustep mailing list Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep ___ Discuss-gnustep mailing list Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
Re: The importance of civil communication on the list (was Re: Fucked up gnustep-make)
Jeff, My intention is not to make it seem like a job, but only to point out that I believe that being respectful is important. In my messages, no matter how pissed I am, except in very extreme circumstances, I try to be always measured in my response on the public mailing list. I try to treat people with respect (even if I am sometimes a bit sarcastic), and I expect the same. For instance, just as a completely hypothetical example, I would have gotten very insulted if the recent email regarding Gorm's menus said Gorm is completely fucking screwed and a piece of shit instead of clearly stating what the issue is. My response, however, still would have been the same as it was, with, perhaps, an it's too bad you feel this way in there someplace. When I look through a list, I, personally, tend to avoid messages whose headers contain profanity, since I assume that they are written by people who are unreasonable. I would expect that many people, likely, do the same since they, similarly, don't wish to waste their time hearing/reading people bitch and moan about something. Your email appears to imply a correllation between success and a heated, passionate debate. I don't dispute that. What I disagree with is that being insulting or using profanity is necessary in order to have such a debate. I'm not making any hard and fast rules here, just explaining my philosophy. Later, GJC -- Gregory Casamento - Original Message From: Jeff Teunissen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: discuss-gnustep@gnu.org Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 1:18:46 PM Subject: Re: The importance of civil communication on the list (was Re: Fucked up gnustep-make) Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf wrote: Am 15.02.2007 um 15:32 schrieb Jeff Teunissen: [snip] Why, why WHY in the name of all that is good should anyone in a Free Software project act professional? Because we want GNUstep to be successful? Because that means GNUstep has to be used in professional environments for that? Because we gain, given GNUstep is used professionally, better code review, better stability, more applications developed using GNUstep, more testing, lesser bugs. Flat-out wrong. What is being referred to as Professionalism is something that human beings do not do on their own. Professionalism is the bloodless rote stupidity enforced in corporations from the top down, from a world where the whole job is about not giving anyone something bad to say about you. That's machinery, not people. Real boats rock. It's not a company, it's a hobby. That attitude of some currently shows in GNUstep. Some professional developers I talked to regard GNUstep as a playtoy of grown up boys because of the overall quality. If for instance the Apache guys had the same attitude nobody would (and could) use Apache (professionally). Wrong again. If the Apache guys weren't having fun, we'd all be using the NCSA (or even the crappy CERN) httpd. If a certain Finnish grad student wasn't having fun with his terminal program, we wouldn't have Linux...and whaddaya know, he had some flame wars along the way. There are technical flame wars aplenty in any healthy project, arguing (and often heatedly) about technical differences of opinion. And guess what? The projects aren't successful _despite_ this, but partially because of it. The best way to destroy a project is to make it seem like a job. -- | Jeff Teunissen -=- Pres., Dusk To Dawn Computing -=- deek at d2dc.net | GPG: 1024D/9840105A 7102 808A 7733 C2F3 097B 161B 9222 DAB8 9840 105A | Core developer, The QuakeForge Project http://www.quakeforge.net/ | Specializing in Debian GNU/Linux http://www.d2dc.net/~deek/ ___ Discuss-gnustep mailing list Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep ___ Discuss-gnustep mailing list Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
Re: The importance of civil communication on the list (was Re: Fucked up gnustep-make)
Stefan Bidigaray wrote: I think the issue here is not professionalism, but politeness. Really, how much more help/attention will you get, and this goes for anywhere you go, if you're insulting anyone? A great example is, step into any government building wanting something and insult (directly or indirectly) anyone in there, see how fast they'll solve your problem. Seriously, whatever happened to common courtesy? Let me quote from the first of my messages in this thread, found in msgid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: ] Personal attacks are unacceptable no matter who does it, or in what ] situation...but technical stuff is fair game no matter what language is used ] about it. Saying a certain product of someone's work sucks might be a little harsh, but it's a far cry from insulting them personally. It's just code. :) I understand that you might be angry, I'm not angry, I just took this opportunity to put forward my opinion on what's been going on in here for years. It does, however, interest me that passionate language (and I'm not referring to colorful words here, but writing forcefully) carries the presumption of anger in here. I write like I speak -- it's a trait that usually needs to be cultivated, and it's known to be the best way to write technical documentation (not to mention fiction). Get to the point, don't use a five-dollar word where a five-cent word will do, use contractions, act like you're having a conversation with the reader with nobody else listening, and so on. [snip] -- | Jeff Teunissen -=- Pres., Dusk To Dawn Computing -=- deek at d2dc.net | GPG: 1024D/9840105A 7102 808A 7733 C2F3 097B 161B 9222 DAB8 9840 105A | Core developer, The QuakeForge Project http://www.quakeforge.net/ | Specializing in Debian GNU/Linux http://www.d2dc.net/~deek/ ___ Discuss-gnustep mailing list Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
Re: Fucked up gnustep-make
On Feb 14, 2007, at 12:59 AM, Chris Vetter wrote: ... The best way to report a bug is politely, and with helpful detail about where it actually occurred and on what system it was running etc.. Hell, if the core developers do not even try to write portable code, even though it's propagated on one of GNUstep's official sites... I suggest you become a core developer, GNUstep will certainly surpass Mac OS X/Cocoa with your help. ___ Discuss-gnustep mailing list Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
Re: Fucked up gnustep-make
On 2007-02-14 01:15:40 +0100 Nicola Pero [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If so, I guess the configure script needs to check that it has gnu-make before trying to use it. Any chance you could submit a patch to fix it? See the links to WIKI above. I checked the links and I couldn't find any patch. I guess I'll modify the current code to also check for 'gnumake' though, as you implicitly suggested. I was referring to the naming convention mentioned on WIKI. -- Chris ___ Discuss-gnustep mailing list Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
Re: Fucked up gnustep-make
On 2007-02-13 23:38:53 +0100 Adam Fedor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This language really isn't appropriate for this list. I agree, somewhat. Hard-coding path or tool names, simply assuming that certain flags of tools exist and/or do the same thing on platforms other than your own, using certain features of a platform without checking that these exist on others as well (eg. /proc) can be EASILY avoided by sitting down first and think about the impact of what you're doing and trying to accomplish. This isn't the first time that 'source code' was commited that was clearly Linux'ism. Don't you think that this will tick people (NOT using Linux) off if it happens again and again -- but could have easily been avoided? Please try to use better words in the future. I apologize if I ticked you off. I probably over-reacted, however this was the seventh or eighth unnecessary Linux'ism I ran into in two days, though not all related to GNUstep-core. That kind of makes you... jumpy (and not in a good way). -- Chris ___ Discuss-gnustep mailing list Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
Re: Fucked up gnustep-make
On 2007-02-14 01:31:31 +0100 Nicola Pero [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And to top it of, even though 'make --version' fails, the script is happily running along. Instead, it should complain about the non-GNU make(1) and quit. Why would you want it to quit ? Whether to quit or not certainly depends on the impact. [...] line printed any time you compile using gnustep-make. But we survived for years without that line, it's hardly an essential feature. Which makes me wonder why it was added now. [...] So, the script did continue, which allowed you to use gnustep-make even if you lost the new feature. I don't see why you'd have hoped for the script to quit, in which case your gnustep-make would have been unusable. If I run a script and see an error, I'd expect it to quit, since an error usually does have an impact somewhere later on. If the script happily runs on, I quit it by hand. And that's what happened here. Since it says (quoting Richard) that GNU make now is a _requirement_ (which is kinda redundant, since GNU make was always required when using GNU Makefiles), and configure is explicitely checking for the GNU Make version... make: illegal option -- - [...] *I* would expect the script to fail and quit, since the found make(1) apparently is NOT a 'GNU make.' OTOH, if this was just a 'goody' and 'nice to have' feature, but not essential, the version check could be made silently and a possible error message piped to limbo. -- Chris ___ Discuss-gnustep mailing list Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
Re: Fucked up gnustep-make
OTOH, if this was just a 'goody' and 'nice to have' feature, but not essential, the version check could be made silently and a possible error message piped to limbo. This is an excellent suggestion! :-) I guess the right way to do it is to pipe all error output into 5, which configure then pipes into config.log. I did that, and also tried to do the same in all the other non-essential gcc tests that we have there. I tried manually causing a few tests to fail, and it seemed to work for me; let me know if that works for you. Thanks ___ Discuss-gnustep mailing list Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
Fucked up gnustep-make
Hi, gs_cv_make_version=`make --version | head -1 | sed -e 's/^[^0-9]*//'` :0 make --version make: illegal option -- - usage: make [-BPSXeiknqrstv] [-C directory] [-D variable] [-d flags] [-E variable] [-f makefile] [-I directory] [-j max_jobs] [-m directory] [-V variable] [variable=value] [target ...] NOT everyone is using LinSux. And yes, I know SVN isn't supposed to be stable. But that doesn't mean a developer shouldn't use some care when uploading new code. Stunts like that doesn't help GNUstep. -- Chris, pretty pissed ___ Discuss-gnustep mailing list Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
Re: Fucked up gnustep-make
On 13 Feb 2007, at 20:24, Chris Vetter wrote: Hi, gs_cv_make_version=`make --version | head -1 | sed -e 's/^[^0-9] *//'` :0 make --version make: illegal option -- - usage: make [-BPSXeiknqrstv] [-C directory] [-D variable] [-d flags] [-E variable] [-f makefile] [-I directory] [-j max_jobs] [-m directory] [-V variable] [variable=value] [target ...] NOT everyone is using LinSux. And yes, I know SVN isn't supposed to be stable. But that doesn't mean a developer shouldn't use some care when uploading new code. Stunts like that doesn't help GNUstep. I suspect that comments like that do a lot to put developers off working on GNUstep, doing immeasurably more harm than breakage of code in svn-trunk. The implied notion that a change must be tested on all platforms before submission to svn-trunk in order to qualify as demonstrating 'some care' is frankly ridiculous and insulting. The best way to report a bug is politely, and with helpful detail about where it actually occurred and on what system it was running etc.. Now, anyone using gnustep-make must be using gnu-make, which supports the --version flag. So the question is why your system barfed? It must have been running some other make somehow. I'm not familiar with the most recent changes to gnustep-make, so I don't actually know where your problem is coming from. Is this the configure script? If so, I guess the configure script needs to check that it has gnu-make before trying to use it. Any chance you could submit a patch to fix it? ___ Discuss-gnustep mailing list Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
Re: Fucked up gnustep-make
On 2007-02-13 15:40:26 -0500 Richard Frith-Macdonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now, anyone using gnustep-make must be using gnu-make, which supports the --version flag. So the question is why your system barfed? It must have been running some other make somehow. The reason should be fairly obvious when you consider the offending line: gs_cv_make_version=`make --version | head -1 | sed -e 's/^[^0-9]*//'` Note that make is hard coded in there. That'll result in the shell looking for a program called make. On non-GNU systems, this is not GNU make. What you want is: gs_cv_make_version=`$(MAKE) --version | head -1 | sed -e 's/^[^0-9]*//'` And the MAKE variable will resolve to the appropriate command for GNU make. ___ Discuss-gnustep mailing list Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
Re: Fucked up gnustep-make
On 13 Feb 2007, at 17:08, Andrew Sveikauskas wrote: On 2007-02-13 15:40:26 -0500 Richard Frith-Macdonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now, anyone using gnustep-make must be using gnu-make, which supports the --version flag. So the question is why your system barfed? It must have been running some other make somehow. The reason should be fairly obvious when you consider the offending line: gs_cv_make_version=`make --version | head -1 | sed -e 's/^ [^0-9]*//'` Note that make is hard coded in there. That'll result in the shell looking for a program called make. On non-GNU systems, this is not GNU make. What you want is: gs_cv_make_version=`$(MAKE) --version | head -1 | sed -e 's/^ [^0-9]*//'` And the MAKE variable will resolve to the appropriate command for GNU make. I just found where the problem is coming from ... it's in configure.ac/configure Unfortunately, the MAKE variable does not exist here, so this fix won't work. Unless someone knows better, I think we need a test/code here to find gnu-make on the system and use it. Is there a standard way of doing that in autoconf? ___ Discuss-gnustep mailing list Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
Re: Fucked up gnustep-make
This language really isn't appropriate for this list. Please try to use better words in the future. ___ Discuss-gnustep mailing list Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
RE: Fucked up gnustep-make
Hi, gs_cv_make_version=`make --version | head -1 | sed -e 's/^[^0-9]*//'` :0 make --version make: illegal option -- - NOT everyone is using LinSux. Thanks, you found a bug! I applied Adam's patch to trunk, can you check it if works for you now ? :-) And yes, I know SVN isn't supposed to be stable. But that doesn't mean a developer shouldn't use some care when uploading new code. Stunts like that doesn't help GNUstep. If you need stable code, please use gnustep-make 1.13.0. You can find it in the Download section on the GNUstep web page. If you are using trunk, it is because you *want* to test unstable code. Which is very useful, especially since you are using a different Unix than I am using, so you're liked to spot bugs that slipped through. So I do encourage you to do it! But keep in mind you're testing unstable code. Thanks PS: If you need relatively stable code, please don't use trunk for a week or two, as I'll keep committing changes for a while now. But the only way to complete the Linux FHS support is working on it. ___ Discuss-gnustep mailing list Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
Re: Fucked up gnustep-make
On 2007-02-13 21:40:26 +0100 Richard Frith-Macdonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I suspect that comments like that do a lot to put developers off working on GNUstep, doing immeasurably more harm than breakage of code in svn-trunk. The implied notion that a change must be tested on all platforms before submission to svn-trunk in order to qualify as demonstrating 'some care' is frankly ridiculous and insulting. No. I'm sorry, but no. I'm NOT saying that code needs to be tested on every possible platform. That would indeed be ridiculous. I'm saying that you should use a bit of brain-work before commiting code. Using a hard-coded call to make(1) simply ASSUMING that said make(1) IS actually 'GNU make' is, pardon my French, stupid. It's even on the f'ing WIKI: http://wiki.gnustep.org/index.php/Writing_portable_code#Do_not_rely_on_tools_available_in_development_environment http://wiki.gnustep.org/index.php/Dependencies#GNUstep-make clearly states: GNU make -- called gmake or gnumake on some systems The best way to report a bug is politely, and with helpful detail about where it actually occurred and on what system it was running etc.. Hell, if the core developers do not even try to write portable code, even though it's propagated on one of GNUstep's official sites... Now, anyone using gnustep-make must be using gnu-make, which supports the --version flag. So the question is why your system barfed? It must have been running some other make somehow. GNUstep doesn't even check whether the make(1) it's calling IS GNU make. No, it's a hard-coded call, simply ASSUMING it is. And to top it of, even though 'make --version' fails, the script is happily running along. Instead, it should complain about the non-GNU make(1) and quit. I'm not familiar with the most recent changes to gnustep-make, so I don't actually know where your problem is coming from. Is this the configure script? Of course it is configure. If so, I guess the configure script needs to check that it has gnu-make before trying to use it. Any chance you could submit a patch to fix it? See the links to WIKI above. -- Chris ___ Discuss-gnustep mailing list Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
Re: Fucked up gnustep-make
If so, I guess the configure script needs to check that it has gnu-make before trying to use it. Any chance you could submit a patch to fix it? See the links to WIKI above. I checked the links and I couldn't find any patch. I guess I'll modify the current code to also check for 'gnumake' though, as you implicitly suggested. Thanks ___ Discuss-gnustep mailing list Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
Re: Fucked up gnustep-make
And to top it of, even though 'make --version' fails, the script is happily running along. Instead, it should complain about the non-GNU make(1) and quit. Why would you want it to quit ? The test will fail with some versions of GNU make too, in which case you don't get the new This is gnustep-make 1.14.0. Type 'make print-gnustep-make-help' for help. line printed any time you compile using gnustep-make. But we survived for years without that line, it's hardly an essential feature. The code was written in such a way that even if the test would screw up badly (as it did on your machine) the only bad consequence is that you wouldn't get this new experimental/unstable feature (printing gnustep-make version and help message) that was added yesterday. So, the script did continue, which allowed you to use gnustep-make even if you lost the new feature. I don't see why you'd have hoped for the script to quit, in which case your gnustep-make would have been unusable. Thanks ___ Discuss-gnustep mailing list Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
Re: Fucked up gnustep-make
On 14 Feb 2007, at 00:51, Helge Hess wrote: On Feb 14, 2007, at 24:59, Chris Vetter wrote: Hell, if the core developers do not even try to write portable code, even though it's propagated on one of GNUstep's official sites... By portable code we refer to Windows, not BSD. That should be rather obvious given that no sane person uses the latter ;-) But...Theo de Raadt is sa...no, I see your point. Cheers, Graham. ___ Discuss-gnustep mailing list Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
The importance of civil communication on the list (was Re: Fucked up gnustep-make)
All, While I realize this is an open forum, it makes us look really unprofessional to have profanity in the subject lines or in the messages. I would appreciate it if we all could please make our communications on the list free of profanity. Later, GJC -- Gregory Casamento - Original Message From: Chris Vetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: discuss-gnustep@gnu.org Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 3:24:24 PM Subject: Fucked up gnustep-make Hi, gs_cv_make_version=`make --version | head -1 | sed -e 's/^[^0-9]*//'` :0 make --version make: illegal option -- - usage: make [-BPSXeiknqrstv] [-C directory] [-D variable] [-d flags] [-E variable] [-f makefile] [-I directory] [-j max_jobs] [-m directory] [-V variable] [variable=value] [target ...] NOT everyone is using LinSux. And yes, I know SVN isn't supposed to be stable. But that doesn't mean a developer shouldn't use some care when uploading new code. Stunts like that doesn't help GNUstep. -- Chris, pretty pissed ___ Discuss-gnustep mailing list Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep ___ Discuss-gnustep mailing list Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
