Mail Archives: cygwin/2006/07/28/10:39:34
Paul D. Smith wrote:
> %% "John W. Eaton" <jwe AT bevo DOT che DOT wisc DOT edu> writes:
>
> jwe> On 28-Jul-2006, Paul D. Smith wrote:
>
> | Regardless, I still wonder whether my idea of building make for a POSIX
> | environment with Cygwin, but setting HAVE_DOS_PATHS explicitly, would
> | work.
>
> jwe> If this could cause some valid Makefiles to do the wrong thing as
> jwe> cgf suggests might happen,
>
> Hm. I don't think I saw that message?
>
> Certainly there are obscure cases where enabling DOS path support will
> behave differently, but they're pretty rare I believe. Is this a Cygwin
> thing?
This was a thing where POSIX compatible makefiles were not behaving as
expected, which is now believed to be due to the cygwin dos-path
handling patches.
>
> jwe> then can we at least make the behavior optional, perhaps with a
> jwe> command line option or magic target (maybe
> jwe> ".WINDOWS_FILENAMES:")?
>
> This would be very tricky: right now all the code to do DOS vs. POSIX
> pathnames is controlled through #ifdefs, so it's a compile-time thing.
> Changing it to a runtime thing would be a lot of work, I think... the
> #ifdeffing in GNU make is kind of a mess, with all the different ports
> we support.
>
> Honestly, I don't see a lot of benefit to it. On a Windows system, even
> in Cygwin, I would assume that everyone would always expect anything
> that looked like a Windows pathname to be treated like a Windows
> pathname. We're not talking about enabling this support on UNIX, just
> in Cygwin.
>
Well, the whole point of cygwin is to give a POSIX-compatible
environment in win32. So it's aiming to be like linux, not windows.
This means that if something like a makefile parses fine in linux, but
not in cygwin (barring linker stuff), something is wrong.
And so on from there..
So even if the DOS #ifdef was enabled, we'd be back at the point of
having patches to attempt to fix this behaviour.
Unless there was some way of having two versions of make - one with this
behaviour and one without, controlled by /etc/alternatives perhaps?
Speculation on my part anyway.
Chris / EqUaTe
--
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 -