Subject: patch for share/man/man4/Makefile to help small machines
To: None <>
From: Julian H Stacey <>
List: current-users
Date: 10/23/1994 13:37:44
"Charles M. Hannum" <> wrote:

> Here's an analysis of your `bug report' concerning
> Frankly, it's an *extremely* bad report, one of the worst ever sent to
> one of our lists.

WRONG !  It was not a `bug report',
It was a follow up to my previous posting, which was a PATCH solution !

>From my patch posting:
> This patch enables the source tree to be compiled on systems that don't
> have so much disc, & where spurious other architecture have been pruned
> prior to compilation.
> Hopefully someone may like to commit it,
> (Phil maybe ?

You chose to reply:
> It is not desirable to omit the other architectures from the standard
> share/man build, primarily for the obvious reason that `share' is
> supposed to be sharable between machines of possibly different
> architecture.

Most systems have no "possibly different architecture" to share with,
many will be short of disc; forcing all machines to build for all
architectures is bad, for those few machines that are large & networked &
want to export all man architectures, better to add an env var

You later chose to broadcast in this `list' forum:
> I'm sending this to current-users in the hope that
> people will take note of it, and attempt to send better bug reports in
> the future.

Following this thin camouflage, you indulged an undisciplined ego,
`point scoring' repeatedly.  This negative attitude could easily discourage
NetBSD folk from contributing patches :-(

Lack of personal self discipline incurs corollary loss of respect.
Your NetBSD core colleagues would be wise to tell you (in private email) 
to exercise considerably more self retraint, when speaking on their behalf.

PS The cc: in header above, is due to recent
   personal mail overload, after which I had to unsubscribe from several
   lists, including, (currently I get

Julian Stacey <> (With PC532/NetBSD & i486/FreeBSD)