Mail Archives: cygwin/2006/08/21/16:59:10
On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 04:40:03PM -0400, William A. Hoffman wrote:
>My suggestion was, to send notice of the coming change before the
>change was made, not after. That is all. IMO, the make issue is over.
>I was just trying to make a suggestion to avoid flame wars like this in
>the future. I don't think it is enjoyable or productive for anyone
>involved.
I guess I can't get away without responding to this.
It is very odd to me that someone who wandered into the discussion late
and is still asking for clarification about what happened (in the
make-w32 mailing list) would feel empowered to suggest that earlier
communication would have helped. However:
1) I thought (and still do think) that MinGW make was an acceptable
solution for people who use only MS-DOS paths.
2) The notion that the Cygwin user community would have done something
proactive and submitted a patch upstream is obviously false.
a) You wouldn't have done it since you weren't paying attention.
b) No one who has responded for the last month has shown any
inclination towards doing anything proactive like that.
3) Complaints about MS-DOS paths aside, I did want to get a new version
of make released because people had been reporting fixes in make 3.81
for some time. I'm not interested in delaying a release for something
like MS-DOS paths. I've frequently gone on record about not caring much
about using MS-DOSisms in what is supposed to be a UNIX/Linux-like
environment.
So, as you can see, I do not agree with your suggestion, I have no plans
on doing anything like this for make in the future, and suggest that,
therefore, there is no reason to continue with this "What If" scenario.
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 -