On Feb 21, 2005, at 4:30 AM, Gregory Seidman wrote:
I filed a bug about GNU make about a year ago, when 3.80 had only been out
for a year and a half. I also pestered my friend who is an Apple employee.
No dice. I'm still waiting. It's not exactly that I expect posting here to
do any good; it's just that the results can't be any worse than the
staggering indifference the proper channels have produced.
Speaking for my group, I can say that we're not in any way "staggeringly indifferent" to this issue, we simply have a lot of other factors to consider that a casual upgrader of some component probably does not (said casual upgrader doesn't have to worry about breaking software not actually on his or her system, for example). I know it may sometimes SEEM that way from an external perspective, but it's really not the case. We do hear your requests and we do act on them when it's possible to do so.
People have cited cvs as an example of "neglect" in this discussion when, in fact, we've wanted to update it for years but for a semi-controversial "fork" over the "tar wrappers" feature, which it took us years to resolve in a manner that would let us move forward again (and we have). We also experimented with upgrading to GNU make 3.80, but it broke a number of things and the bang-for-buck in a single point-release update (3.79 to 3.80) didn't seem to make it worth the effort, at least at the present time, to figure out why those things broke and just who's "fault" it was (not blaming GNU make, sometimes people misuse the tools, but it still requires investigation). We've updated a LOT of stuff in Tiger, and we'll get back to GNU make at some point too, but everything is a question of time, resources and calculating where the best bang for the buck can be had.
Jordan K. Hubbard
Engineering Manager, BSD technology group
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Darwin-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden