X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 00:24:34 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-no-personal-reply-please@cygwin.com>
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81
Message-ID: <20060817042433.GA18335@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
References: <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> <Pine.GSO.4.63.0608161418370.9095@access1.cims.nyu.edu> <6.2.3.4.2.20060816144036.09695af0@pop.nycap.rr.com> <20060816194705.GB7674@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> <6.2.3.4.2.20060816162448.09699ca0@pop.nycap.rr.com> <17635.34130.414540.228731@segfault.lan> <6.2.3.4.2.20060816212830.096af8d0@pop.nycap.rr.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20060816212830.096af8d0@pop.nycap.rr.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie.com@cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe@cygwin.com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help@cygwin.com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com

On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 09:41:23PM -0400, William A. Hoffman wrote:
>The original make-3.81 does not compile with HAVE_DOS_PATHS on cygwin,
>and a patch on the make-w32 list crashed, I found the cause of the crash
>and with my patch all tests for make check pass.  Also, windows paths
>work in makefiles again.  
>
>The reason I am posting this patch to this list is so that other cygwin
>users can try the patch and make sure that things work in the ways they
>expect.

Presenting the cygwin mailing list with a patch that hasn't been
commented on by the upstream make maintainer (or me*, for that matter)
is not a good idea.

I've subsequently (as promised) expressed my concerns about your patch
and, if others have issues, you'll be in the situation of "No, don't try
that one, try this one instead" when/if you adapt to the concerns.

This is why the suggestion was that you take the patch to the upstream
mailing list.

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/

