From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Annoyingly cautious make rules Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2011 11:55:33 -0500 Message-ID: References: <83ehwnc97k.fsf@gnu.org> <4ED917E2.7020807@cs.ucla.edu> <4ED94331.7030702@cs.ucla.edu> <4ED98EED.5020301@cs.ucla.edu> <4EDA8356.50609@cs.ucla.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1323017754 32115 80.91.229.12 (4 Dec 2011 16:55:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2011 16:55:54 +0000 (UTC) Cc: eliz@gnu.org, eggert@cs.ucla.edu, schwab@linux-m68k.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Dec 04 17:55:50 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RXFLv-0004iS-Uk for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 04 Dec 2011 17:55:48 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57886 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RXFLv-00071V-9P for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 04 Dec 2011 11:55:47 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:38593) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RXFLt-00071P-9R for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Dec 2011 11:55:46 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RXFLs-00087p-Br for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Dec 2011 11:55:45 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]:59520) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RXFLs-00087l-AC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Dec 2011 11:55:44 -0500 Original-Received: from dsl-67-55-6-134.acanac.net ([67.55.6.134]:60574 helo=ceviche.home) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RXFLk-0000Z7-Fy; Sun, 04 Dec 2011 11:55:36 -0500 Original-Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 34987660D4; Sun, 4 Dec 2011 11:55:33 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Richard Stallman's message of "Sun, 04 Dec 2011 10:04:35 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.92 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.10 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:146479 Archived-At: > I agree that the term "maintainer-mode" is now confusing, and that it > would be good to either remove the option altogether, or rename > --disable-maintainer-mode to --enable-loose-dependency-checking or > somesuch. But such a change doesn't seem suitable for 24.1. > The existing option name is not merely misleading, it is backwards. > I think that qualifies as a bug. In defense of whoever came up with it, it's really designed in the context of "user downloads a tarball and compiles it" vs "maintainer keeps a tree for long periods of time". Stefan