Mail Archives: cygwin/2006/08/16/11:38:08
At 10:41 AM 8/16/2006, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Aug 16 10:14, William A. Hoffman wrote:
>> So, there seem to be three options on the table:
>>
>> - pay redhat to put the patch back
>
>The Cygwin net distro is not a Red Hat thingy. It's an entirely
>volunteer driven project. If you want a package being "fixed" for you,
>it's up to the current maintainer, not Red Hat. As far as Red Hat is
>concerned, you can purchase Red Hat's supported Cygwin distribution
>which comes with user support.
>>...or offer money. That carries more weight than complaining. :-)
>>
>>However that doesn't work in all cases. This I am reasonably confident
>>is one of them. But as a general rule...
>
>No, it would work in this case, but I hesitate to name my price since
>it will surely make me sound even more evil.
>
>cgf
I assumed since cgf worked for Red hat, that his offer to take money
would go to Red Hat. My mistake.
>> - have the patch made part of the upstream gnu make
>
>That's the best solutiion of all. The whole "problem" is that the
>current Cygwin make maintainer has no fun to work on this issue.
>Everybody else is free to put a bit of time and sweat into this and get
>this for free firther on. I'm still wondering why people don't go this
>way instead of discussing this problem, which is none, IMHO, to death.
OK, I will move off this discussion, and try to work with the upstream
gnu make. It is the only option left. Although I am not convinced that
this is not an issue unique to cygwin. Cygwin supports both posix and
windows paths. Unix environments do not support windows paths, so no
interest from the upstream gnu make there. Only support for windows paths
works already in upstream gnu make, so no interest there. It is only on
cygwin where this makes sense.
>> The point I am trying to make is that the one option that is off the table,
>> is taking over the maintenance of the make package in cygwin and doing
>> the patch yourself.
>
>I'm honestly confused. Why would it better to have another Cygwin
>distro maintainer for a package instead of getting the patches included
>upstream? This makes no sense at all. If my head wouldn't be fixed to
>my neck, it would actually fall down from all the shaking now.
Because it would be easy. A small patch and everything goes back
to the way it was. I also think this is a unique cygwin issue and
the upstream maintainers may not be interested in it.
I will stop posting on this thread, but I am sure you have not heard the last of it.
There were a lot of people using a feature that was removed. I am sure there are
many folks out there that have not updated cygwin, and do not know about the change yet.
When they find out, they will complain as well.
-Bill
--
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 -