Mail Archives: cygwin/2005/05/04/12:04:42
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 04:38:08PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>----Original Message----
>>From: Peter Farley
>>Sent: 04 May 2005 16:06
>
>>But what if it is *not* your Makefile, but someone else's, e.g. the
>>many GNU source packages that expect bash behavior? Surely you don't
>>intend that ordinary users (well, OK, anyone compiling from a source
>>package isn't really "ordinary") should modify every package maintained
>>by GNU in order to make it under cygwin, do you?
>
>HELLO? CAN ANYONE HEAR ME? <tap-tap-tap> Testing, testing, is this
>thing on? Am I invisible all of a sudden? Has everyone in the world
>gone mad except me? Why is everyone coming out with awkward solutions
>involving remounting mounts or fiddling with symlinks or hacking around
>every
>poorly-written-makefile-containing-nonportable-bashisms-in-the-whole-world?
Maybe because fixing the Makefile means not having to remember to type
"SHELL=/bin/bash.exe" every time you invoke make? That's why I didn't
suggest this in my first response even though I'm a makefile *guru*.
I agree that the mount technique doesn't make a lot of sense (and woe to
you if you hit CTRL-C at the wrong point) but your "solution" is
actually a workaround.
Of course, you could just put a
SHELL = /bin/bash
in the Makefile but then, gasp!, you'd be modifying the makefile and
shirley you don't intend every person in this space time continuum to do
that.
I guess if your goal is to just build a package and forget about it, then
using the command line is acceptable. You just have to remember to do that
again, when you build the package in six months. Or, maybe you could make
a shell alias! Yeah, that's the ticket.
cgf
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -