X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 15:47:05 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81 Message-ID: <20060816194705.GB7674@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com 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> <20060816155054.GY20467@calimero.vinschen.de> <6.2.3.4.2.20060816144036.09695af0@pop.nycap.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20060816144036.09695af0@pop.nycap.rr.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 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 03:08:54PM -0400, William A. Hoffman wrote: >At 02:20 PM 8/16/2006, Igor Peshansky wrote: >>On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> >>Not only that, but the upstream maintainer actually suggested a couple of >>avenues of investigation to make the patch smaller by using functionality >>already built into the upstream make. All that remains is for someone to >>actually "do the work" (tm). >So, it sounds like from the thread Paul suggested setting >HAVE_DOS_PATHS to true for the cygwin build, but Christopher does not >think that MS-DOS paths have a place in a cygwin version of make. > >I would be willing to try compiling the upstream make with >HAVE_DOS_PATHS to see if it works for me. However, if I report back >that it works great, then what? Christopher would you change the build >for cygwin make to have this option? The suggestion was that a patch be submitted upstream. I agree with the suggestion and have amplified on it a little in another message. This suggestion does not require further input from me. If I was interested in being involved in coming up with a patch, I'd have already done so. I'm not interested in playing any further games of catch-up with you or anyone else. Please don't try to involve me in your attempts to modify the upstream make. However, should you actually come up with a patch, I will monitor the make mailing list and, if I have any objections, I'll make them there. 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/