Re: Potentially Predatory Pre-Announcement of Possible Vaporware (zinq-djbdns-0.01)

On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 09:07:25PM -0700, Andy Bradford wrote:

> So, to claim that DJB didn't  have one because of ``convention'' is just
> plain wrong.

If you are talking about my comment:

  There is little point in having a Makefile target (aside from
  convention) since it would have no dependencies.

Then

  - I don't claim to speak for DJB or understand his motivations. I was
    merely making a personal observation.

  - I didn't say convention caused one _not_ to have such a rule, but
    that convention would be the reason _to_ have one.

-Peff