Mail Archives: cygwin/2006/08/16/11:49:34
On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 11:35:50AM -0400, William A. Hoffman wrote:
>At 10:41 AM 8/16/2006, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>On Aug 16 10:14, William A. Hoffman wrote:
>>>cgf wrote:
>>>...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.
>
>I assumed since cgf worked for Red hat, that his offer to take money
>would go to Red Hat. My mistake.
I don't work for Red Hat.
>>> - 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.
There has been a response from GNU make maintainers *in*this*very*thread*.
Even if it was "unique to Cygwin", have you heard of something called an
"#ifdef"?
>>> 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.
How do you know it is "a small patch"? Have you actually looked at the
code? I find that unlikely.
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 -