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
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/
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
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
- 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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
27 matches
Mail list logo
