Re: improve INSTALL contents

[Keith Marshall]

On Sunday 17 May 2009 16:13:19 Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Several mails in this thread have dealt with the same
> issues twice or more times.  It's as if people ask questions but
> don't read answers, and that is what is very impolite towards
> other people on this mailing list.

Ralf,

I do *not* consider it impolite, to repeat content when it is 
patently obvious that it has been overlooked, or ignored, on the 
first occasion of posting; however, while I sympathise, and even 
share your frustration, since it has become apparent that some of 
that repeated content has been willfully ignored, I *do* consider 
it impolite that *you* demand termination of the discussion on 
these grounds alone.

On the other hand, Alfred, your insolent disregard for the opinions 
expressed by others is many orders of magnitude more impolite than 
Ralf's request, the more so when the case you try to make is *not* 
supported by the GNU Coding Standards, (as Ralf and others have 
already brought to your attention, on more than one occasion).

If the autoconf project is to be seen as the custodian of the 
INSTALL file, then it must be cognisant of the requirements and 
capabilities of *all* systems supported by autoconf, not just the 
paltry few you wish to consider; Ralf understands this, and has 
opposed the suggested patches, for this reason.

I would never, lightly, take any decision to fork even a single 
file.  However, if INSTALL were to be modified as proposed in this 
discussion thread, I would be obliged to do exactly that; it would 
be completely unacceptable for me to distribute any INSTALL file 
which contained the incomplete and misleading information proposed, 
along with any package associated with my projects; under Ralf's 
stewardship, I think I can be reasonably confident that I will not 
need to take any such action.

-- 

Regards,
Keith.