Russell Coker wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, Stephan Kulow wrote:
> >Russell Coker wrote:
> >>
> >> Do we really need to have the following in this file:
> >> echo "mkdir $pathcomp" 1>&2
> >> This means that there are heaps of mkdir commands appearing on stderr.  I
> >> believe that the right thing to do is to have the commands appear on stdout and
> >> have any error messages appear on stderr - if there are no errors then IMHO we
> >> should not have anything on stderr.
> >>
> >> Would anyone object if I changed this?
> >
> >Ask the FSF, this files are verbatim copied and I have no plans
> >to make a different version than anyone else has.
> 
> Due to the lack of response I has presumed that no-one but me really cared
> either way and I had already checked in the patch before getting your message.
How can I take you serious? I answered the same day and 9 days later you
tell me, that no-one answered? 

As I said, I don't care too much about your changes, but I will revert
them when I get a new version from FSF - so ask them.

Greetings, Stephan

> 
> Do you want me to change it back?  I think that while it's a good idea to stick
> with upstream source the removal of a "1>&2" is not going to cause any problems
> as it's purpose is obvious IMHO.
> 
> --
> I am in London and would like to meet any Linux users here.
> I plan to work in London for 6 months and then I might move to some other
> place where the pay is good.

-- 
A big plus when your parents split up, is, that you don't
have to imagine them doing it again. * Mr. Rhodes