Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Reply-To:	<jsegrave AT itdesign DOT ie>
From:	"John Segrave \(x3254\)" <jsegrave AT itdesign DOT ie>
To:	"'Larry Hall \(RFK Partners, Inc\)'" <lhall AT rfk DOT com>
Cc:	<cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject:	RE: Make 3.79.1 - dependency checking & previous versions
Date:	Mon, 25 Feb 2002 10:49:43 -0000
Message-ID:	<003c01c1bdea$22354d40$aea410ac@itdesign.ie>
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627
In-Reply-To:	<4.3.1.2.20020221110911.0219d128@pop.ma.ultranet.com>
Importance:	Normal
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000

Larry - thanks for those files.  I think we have our issue sorted: when
we use the FSF win32 port of make 3.79.1, dependency checking works fine
- when we use the cygwin port of make 3.79.1, it doesn't.

For the moment we can get away with using the FSF port, but as soon as I
get time I'll try to track down where the cygwin problem originated.

Thanks again,

John


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) [mailto:lhall AT rfk DOT com] 
> Sent: 21 February 2002 16:12
> To: jsegrave AT itdesign DOT ie
> Subject: RE: Make 3.79.1 - dependency checking & previous versions
> 
> 
> At 11:01 AM 2/21/2002, you wrote:
> > > >I'd really appreciate it if I could get some of those 
> packages from
> > > >you. Can you put them online anywhere?
> >
> > > I can email them if you want.  Contact me off-list with the
> > > packages you'd like and I'll send you what I have.
> >
> >I'm mostly interested in trying to get a make that is close 
> to 3.79.1, 
> >but doesn't have the dependency checking problem.  So 3.79.3-4 is 
> >probably the one to check first.  Failing that, I'd like to 
> try 3.79-3 
> >to see if the problem existed that far back.  I have an interest in 
> >getting 3.79.1-2 and 3.79.1-1, but that's just curiosity, I 
> don't need 
> >them yet :)  If you can send me any of these versions, I'd really 
> >appreciate it.
> 
> 
> 
> Here they are.
> 
> Enjoy! ;-)
> 
> 
> 
> 


--
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 -