X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:20:24 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81 Message-ID: <20060817202024.GE22061@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <20060816200428.GA27256@calimero.vinschen.de> <400BDC416E2A0042AA35DF3919BB8A514D46DC@mail.mtl.proksim.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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 Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 02:26:34PM -0500, mwoehlke wrote: >Olivier Langlois wrote: >>>Just for the records: My design goals for Cygwin >>>are that it works fine as a POSIX environment, not that it works fine >>>to run DOS tools. That's a nice side-effect at best. >> >>It seems to me that Cygwin design goals have changed recently otherwise >>if offering a POSIX environment while coexisting nicely with DOS tools >>was not one of the legacy Cygwin design goal, how comes this >>feature/behavior has been included for so many years in Cygwin? How >>about backward compatibility as a design goal? Backward compatibility is >>a nice design goal, you know. > >FLOSS is not known for keeping backward compatibility particularly high >in their list of design goals. :-) We do keep it high on our list for the Cygwin DLL. We agonize over it quite a bit, in fact. "make" is neither the Cygwin project nor is it the Cygwin DLL. cgf - make maintainer -- 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/