[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: rc & runsystem
From: |
Alfred M. Szmidt |
Subject: |
Re: rc & runsystem |
Date: |
Sat, 18 Dec 2004 00:05:27 +0100 |
make install is make install. It is not a package manager. Get
used to it.
No, I won't get used to it since the behaviour of `make install' is
wrong. That _I_ use it as a package manager is totaly irrelevant to
the dicussion. Clobbering files that *will and should* get modifed by
users is wrong.
If you would like a configure switch or makefile variable to enable
some nonstandard behavior for your convenience while hacking, that
is fine by me.
It isn't about me or my hacks, you said yourself I could get a branch
for that. It is about what _users_ expect, and this is what users
expect, you have Neal, Harley and Marco back over there who think this
is a good.
But don't get any fantasies about what the proper behavior is.
Please Roland, you are just being silly now.
Cheers!
Re: rc & runsystem, Neal H. Walfield, 2004/12/16
Re: rc & runsystem, Roland McGrath, 2004/12/16
- Re: rc & runsystem, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2004/12/17
- Re: rc & runsystem, Roland McGrath, 2004/12/17
- Re: rc & runsystem,
Alfred M. Szmidt <=
- Re: rc & runsystem, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2004/12/17
- Re: rc & runsystem, Roland McGrath, 2004/12/17
- Re: rc & runsystem, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2004/12/17
- Re: rc & runsystem, Roland McGrath, 2004/12/17
- Re: rc & runsystem, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2004/12/17
- Re: rc & runsystem, Roland McGrath, 2004/12/17
- Re: rc & runsystem, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2004/12/17
- Re: rc & runsystem, Roland McGrath, 2004/12/17
- Re: rc & runsystem, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2004/12/17
- Re: rc & runsystem, Roland McGrath, 2004/12/17