X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
Message-ID:	<455D346D.1040203@qualcomm.com>
Date:	Thu, 16 Nov 2006 20:02:53 -0800
From:	Rob Walker <rwalker AT qualcomm DOT com>
User-Agent:	Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (Windows/20061025)
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: make-3.81 update?
References:	<455CBAF4 DOT 7080302 AT qualcomm DOT com> <455CCDFF DOT 1010505 AT gmail DOT com> <455CD3BB DOT 1080700 AT qualcomm DOT com> <455D09CD DOT 9040008 AT cygwin DOT com>
In-Reply-To:	<455D09CD.9040008@cygwin.com>
X-IsSubscribed:	yes
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
> Rob Walker wrote:
>> Bill Hoffman wrote:
>>> Rob Walker wrote:
>>>> http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/make/job.c?rev=1.182&root=make&view=auto 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Looks like the Windows-style paths support has been accepted as an 
>>>> upstream patch.  When can Cygwin pick this up?
>>> When make 3.82 comes out.
>> Thanks.  Is this imminent or scheduled?  Is there anything I can do 
>> to help in the meantime?
>
>
> <http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2006-11/msg00433.html>
Yes, I got this shortly after sending my query.  Sorry for the spam.
>
>
>> I spent some time browsing the Cygwin site looking for information 
>> about package maintainers.  Most of what I found was how to become a 
>> package maintainer for an as-yet-unsupported package.  What I was 
>> really looking for was a list of the current maintainers, and 
>> possibly information about how to help get an already-owned package 
>> updated.
>
>
> Contacting package owners is done through this list.  The Cygwin package
> owner for 'make' has already replied to this thread.
There were actually 2 people who felt qualified to answer my question.  
Presumably only one is the package owner.  Were there a list of package 
owners, I could have ignored the errant response.
>
>
>> Maintenance of bash and make seem to follow very different 
>> philosophies for updates (the former seems much more active), am I 
>> mistaken?
>
>
> They are two different people.
Yes, I assumed this, but it doesn't answer my question.  I guess I 
didn't really take the time to craft something the package owner could 
actually respond to, though.  My query was a rather ham-handed attempt 
to get the make package owner to justify not having picked up an 
upstream patch that was (somewhat) specifically targeted for Cygwin.

Now that I've got the package owner's response, I think I'm happy ;)

Thanks,
Rob


--
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 -