Hi--

I'd hate to intrude if you guys intend to argue each other senseless,  
but there are more and less productive ways of going about anything.

Arguing that a change is better simply because it is "standards  
compliant" is pretty silly, given how many standards there are to  
choose from.  A change that causes multiple regressions (I've heard  
emacs and wget mentioned, as well as lynx) and gets fixed by projects  
switching to gmake rather than the stock system make probably wasn't  
a good idea to begin with.

Will this problem go away if someone reverts the Makefile changes so  
that .h is listed in .SUFFIXES?

On May 25, 2005, at 11:59 AM, Todd Vierling wrote:
> On Wed, 25 May 2005, Thomas Dickey wrote:
>>> (In more recent version branches of NetBSD and other OS's,  
>>> system .h files
>>> have become progrssively more strict about standards conformance.
>
>> There must be something nice I could find to say about NetBSD's  
>> header,
>> but offhand, all I can recall are their problems (incomplete,
>
> Hm, can you say "standards conformance" again?
>
> Please keep your (likely Linux-advocacy based) flamebait at home.   
> The rest
> of us are working with third party software quite successfully on  
> NetBSD,
> and it's unfortunate that you feel the need to have an unfounded  
> temper
> tantrum about it.

Never assume that someone who disagrees with you doesn't know what  
they are talking about: I'm pretty sure that Thomas Dickey has been  
working on X11 since before Linux was invented.  I don't mean to take  
sides, here, though: I didn't see any PR's submitted by "Dickey" in  
the NetBSD GNATS database, either.

Criticism is pretty cheap, diffs and working code are harder.
Or am I out of line, wanting to see a little more code and a bit less  
argument?  :-)

-- 
-Chuck