xserver build failling AFTER it works ??

[Chuck Robey]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 7:51 AM, Chuck Robey <chuckr at telenix.org> wrote:
>> The comment about it being "no official script other than build.sh" strikes me
>> as funny ... something like asking a bank robber if they like stealing, and
>> having them answer "no, of course not ... well, excepting this robbery, of
>> course".  That's somewhat of an extreme simile, sorry, it's the only one that
>> ocurred to me at the moment.  I am talking about replacing build.sh, so saying
>> "we don't do that, except for build.sh" is just a bit on the droll side.  I
>> mean, I'm /talking/ /about/ replacing build.sh with a far better tool, one that
>> would be far simpler to fix if it got broken, and be able to do it without
>> making a single change in your modularization strategy..
> 
> I don't see what's so hard to understand. build.sh _is_ the official
> script. It has shortcomings and it could use somebody fixing those
> shortcomings. Or, like Daniel and Peter both have said, if you think a
> make-based solution would be better, send it in. You keep saying how
> much better a make-based build would be and how you would work on it.
> No one has told you not to do that.

That's untrue on 2 counts ... first, it was said (but I can't remember who
anymore, and I didn't save it) that the build.sh did the same thing, so my
suggested Makefile wasn't needed.  Secondly, I said in the initial mail (and
only about 3 other times at least) that to do what I wanted, I needed answers
dealing with some items of the autotools, things I didn't know and had been
really miserable at figuring out.  I offered (and the offer's still good, I
suppose) that if you wanted it done, someone would need to answer those
questions for me ... they dealt with the file products of the autotools stuff.

If you didn't (and don't) want it, you merely need to keep quiet, and I won't
post again on the subject.  If you don't want it, why all the traffic?  I'll
build *something* like it for myself only, and let it die there (withoout that
info, it'll be really much more basic).  Besides, anyone who knows me knows I
would never, ever post in someone else's archive without specific permission.
That's something that would never change, under no circumstances, I don't do
things like that ever.  At some point in the future, it's conceivable that I
might be given something like write permission to your archive, but short of
that, my ethics aren't bendable that far. (it's also conceivable that you never
give me that permission, I'm not asking for it at the moment).

I really like Peter, so I can't quite understand how Peter could misunderstand
me quite that completely.

> 
> --
> Dan

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (FreeBSD)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkh77awACgkQz62J6PPcoOlTXACgotVkdh1OwyMpgBLPOqJvfQiU
JzoAn0bZM6OnlswbARy6cW1Vn4p46uvN
=F1KY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----