[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [bug #41125] -make documentation is un-installable

From: Richard Frith-Macdonald
Subject: Re: [bug #41125] -make documentation is un-installable
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 11:33:06 +0000

On 10 Jan 2014, at 10:24, Markus Hitter <address@hidden> wrote:

> Am 10.01.2014 09:26, schrieb Richard Frith-Macdonald:
>> However,  I tried your patch as follows:
>> $ cd Documentation
>> $ make
> Unbelievable!

That I should test your patch using the most common sequence of commands rather 
than the particular sequence you want to use?
Certainly I *expected* it not to work, but I wanted to confirm that I hadn't 
missed anything.

Experienced GNUstep users will use that sequence to build most things (because 
most gnustep stuff works by just typing 'make').
Newbies will use that sequence ... which is why the makefile contains a special 
case to build a temporary/local copy of the documentation for it.
Anyone who just forgets to run configure will hit it too.

> What from ...
> Am 09.01.2014 20:49, schrieb Markus Hitter:
>> The only minor problem not solved is, "make -C Documentation distclean"
>> _without_ configuring previously errors out (instead of doing
>> nonsense before).
> ... didn't you understand?

I assumed it mean't that the only problem remaining was a minor one where you 
attempt to do a 'distclean' on an unconfigured system.

> Believe me, I'm done with this bullshit. If you insist in ignoring
> everything which doesn't fit you extremely narrow mind and insist in
> making things far more complex than necessary, please continue. But
> don't bother me.

> Until yesterday I tried to find a way for converging some of the forks
> of GNUstep. Glad to see these considerations have come to an end just
> this minute. I'll join one of the forks.

I have really bent over backwards to be polite and constructive  ... to the 
point of implementing everything you have asked for and more! 
In return it seems I just get insulted because I dare to point out that your 
patch, while doing what *you* want, breaks important things for other people.
Improving things to work for you is a good thing, but if it's narrow-minded of 
me to try to make sure we make things work for *everyone*, then so be it.

But ... consider ... forking just means you create something for yourself which 
works the way you want and no other.
Maybe it's easier to code that way, but is it really a good thing?
Steve jobs' slogan of 'it just works' has always been a driver for GNUstep ... 
and that means it should work for everyone (particularly the inexperienced).

reply via email to

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