X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 14:18:04 -0400 From: Bob Rossi To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81 Message-ID: <20060816181804.GC7538@brasko.net> Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <6.2.3.4.2.20060815151104.0b40e260@pop.nycap.rr.com> <01b901c6c116$21259430$a501a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> <6.2.3.4.2.20060816091525.0ab90af0@pop.nycap.rr.com> <20060816144110.GX20467@calimero.vinschen.de> <6.2.3.4.2.20060816111421.0b446b60@pop.nycap.rr.com> <20060816154920.GA1705@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> <6.2.3.4.2.20060816131917.0b452690@pop.nycap.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20060816131917.0b452690@pop.nycap.rr.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 01:52:23PM -0400, William A. Hoffman wrote: > At 11:49 AM 8/16/2006, Christopher Faylor wrote: > > > >How do you know it is "a small patch"? Have you actually looked at the > >code? I find that unlikely. > > I had not looked at the source, but figured it most likely was not that big > a change. I now have looked at the sources, and minus the makefile changes, > the diff between the upstream 3.80 and 3.81 is about 450 lines of diff. > Although if you removed the command.com changes, and only used sh to launch > stuff, the changes would be much smaller than that. > > I can see why it would not be accepted upstream as is: > > ChangeLog.RedHat: * vpath.c: use cygwin32_win32_to_posix_path_list() in > ChangeLog.RedHat: cygwin.dll library to accept both posix and win32 paths > > It makes a call to cygwin.dll. > > So, I suppose a new patch would be needed up stream that did not have the > command.com stuff ( I don't think it is being missed). The new patch would only > put in support for drive letters to work, and I would think that it would be much > smaller. Hi Bill, Do you plan on creating a patch to make that would provide the 3.80 functionality? Bob Rossi -- 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/