Message-ID: <442CFB2A.8090300@mycom-int.fr.invalid>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 11:49:30 +0200
From: Shaddy Baddah <sbaddah@mycom-int.fr.invalid>
Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: GNU make 3.81rc2 available and I'm worried
References: <20060330200956.GG28682@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
In-Reply-To: <20060330200956.GG28682@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com

Hi,

On 3/30/2006 10:09 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> That would suggest that you should be producing your own version of
> make for your own personal needs.

Ok, fair enough. Sorry if I came of demanding (it wasn't my intention).

cgf, as the maintainer of the current Cygwin make release (version 
3.80-1), could you assist me please?

The problem as I see it is that GNU make was ported in these earlier 
releases, but 1) the source was not modified with atomic patches, 2) the 
patches never made it upstream (not saying there wasn't an attempt. I 
don't know).

Am I right on point 1? If not, is there a patch set that I can look at 
to make the porting easier?

At this point, you might be asking why I don't merge the 3.80 to 3.81 
patch back into the cygwin source. It is because of point 2. I would 
like to "give a stab" at trying to get any porting patches accepted 
upstream. Am I breaking new ground here, or has it been tried and failed 
previously?

Regards,
Shaddy

--
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/