Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date:	Tue, 14 Aug 2001 19:59:23 -0400
From:	Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To:	Cygwin AT Cygwin DOT Com
Cc:	Bernard Dautrevaux <Dautrevaux AT microprocess DOT com>,
	"'Tim Van Holder'" <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>, automake AT gnu DOT org
Subject:	Re: Automake 1.4l released
Message-ID:	<20010814195923.A28367@redhat.com>
Reply-To:	cygwin AT Cygwin DOT Com
Mail-Followup-To:	Cygwin AT Cygwin DOT Com,
	Bernard Dautrevaux <Dautrevaux AT microprocess DOT com>,
	'Tim Van Holder' <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>, automake AT gnu DOT org
References:	<3B7974C6 DOT 83934084 AT yahoo DOT com> <3B797B22 DOT C06C71D9 AT yahoo DOT com> <87bslip7hj DOT fsf AT creche DOT redhat DOT com>
Mime-Version:	1.0
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.3.11i
In-Reply-To:	<87bslip7hj.fsf@creche.redhat.com>; from tromey@redhat.com on Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 05:06:00PM -0600

On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 05:06:00PM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>> "Earnie" == Earnie Boyd <earnie_boyd AT yahoo DOT com> writes:
>
>Earnie> Automake is a sister tool to Autoconf and should maintain the
>Earnie> same effort to maintain portability.
>
>That's true.  But we're talking about the capability to run `make
>distcheck' on a platform where the semantics are not Unix-like in an
>unanticipated way.
>
>I don't have a problem working around bugs in vendor tools.  We do
>that all the time in automake.  However, I prefer that free software
>be fixed at the source as well.  That is, we might implement a
>workaround in automake, but I dislike using that as an excuse to leave
>other free tools unfixed.

I haven't been paying close attention to this topic.

If I can summarize, I think I'm seeing this:

1) New version of automake is released with no Cygwin testing for an
   important feature.  Or, is this mentioned in the release notes?

2) Cygwin people notice and report bug.

3) Cygwin people provide workaround which is rejected.

4) Automake people say "Not a bug.  Fix Cygwin!"

AFAICT, the rationale for this stance is that Cygwin is a free software
project and therefore we should just drop everything and fix "our bug"
if we want automake to work.  Or, possibly, we're supposed to provide
a detailed rationale on why it isn't possible to fix this in Windows.

This seems to ignore the fact that people are using older versions of
Cygwin.  Is it automake policy to tell people to update to newer OS
versions when there are problems with automake that can be traced to
an OS fault?  Or, perhaps a better example would be, Does the automake
group tell people to upgrade their libc.so when an incompatibility is
detected?

If not, then clearly automake needs to include a workaround.

Regardless, in the meantime, we'll investigate whether it is possible to
work around this *Microsoft Windows* behavior.  If it is possible to fix
without a lot of fundamental changes in Cygwin, we'll try to get a fix
into 1.3.3.  That was going to be released in the next couple of weeks.
It looks like this might delay that.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -