On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 09:39:00AM -0400, matthew sporleder wrote:
> I have met very few open source project developers who would not
> appreciate an email like this:
> 
> "Hey, I changed seven lines of code in your program and now it
> compiles on five different architectures without modification,
> including the one you use.  Here's a patch:
> <patch>
> ...
> </patch>
> "
> 
> So since both of you seem to have problems with all kinds of projects,
> (operating systems and individual programs), why don't you make it
> more public knowledge and fix some of the stuff.

Well, that seems to be what Martin Husemann did (he didn't actually
supply a patch, but the change was simple enough: add ".h" as a
.SUFFIX). However, instead of Thomas Dickey saying, "Cool, thanks for
catching that! It'll be fixed in the next version," he said, "I
suspect that the reason for the breakage is more mundane, e.g., a
problem in NetBSD's handling of the variable $o in the suffixes line,
making it go off on a tangent someplace."

I.e., even though it would be very easy for him to check that, indeed,
the Makefile had an inference rule for .h, but .h wasn't in the
.SUFFIX list, he chose to claim that the problem was in NetBSD's make.
Then, subsequently, he makes irrelevant and unsubstantiated assertions
about problems with NetBSD's include files. What do include files have
to do with fixing the problem with lynx's Makefile? Nothing? Just
attempting to redirect the problem back to NetBSD? Exactly.
-- 
Name: Dave Huang         |  Mammal, mammal / their names are called /
INet: khym@azeotrope.org |  they raise a paw / the bat, the cat /
FurryMUCK: Dahan         |  dolphin and dog / koala bear and hog -- TMBG
Dahan: Hani G Y+C 29 Y++ L+++ W- C++ T++ A+ E+ S++ V++ F- Q+++ P+ B+ PA+ PL++