Re: make check-exec-image failure

[Sam S. <sd...@gn...>]

Hi Bruno,

> * Bruno Haible <oe...@py...t> [2017-03-13 01:12:19 +0100]:
>
> So, when users ask for a "single executable" option, tell them that this
> option would buy them nothing.

I see your point, but I find it unconvincing.

It sounds like "I cannot give you what you came to expect from C, so I
will try to convince you that you should not ask for it in the first
place".

You are a smart guy and you can build a convincing sounding argument.

However, it boils down to "the whole world is wrong, I am right".
The same story was with FP contagion 20 years ago - I understand the
subject and I implemented what the world thinks is right.
The same story with ignoring GCC warnings today - I don't understand the
subject and I am leaving it to you (the problem is that if you step
away again, CLISP will be dead in the water because finding someone
shares your views would be impossible.)


-- 
Sam Steingold (http://sds.podval.org/) on Ubuntu 16.10 (yakkety) X 11.0.11804000
http://www.childpsy.net/ http://islamexposedonline.com http://camera.org
http://openvotingconsortium.org http://www.memritv.org http://ffii.org
Money does not "play a role", it writes the scenario.