Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Message-ID: <20050504150540.43048.qmail@web30212.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 08:05:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Peter Farley Subject: Re: pwd vs $PWD, bash, cygwin vs Linux To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com In-Reply-To: 6667 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-IsSubscribed: yes Note-from-DJ: This may be spam But what if it is *not* your Makefile, but someone else's, e.g. the many GNU source packages that expect bash behavior? Surely you don't intend that ordinary users (well, OK, anyone compiling from a source package isn't really "ordinary") should modify every package maintained by GNU in order to make it under cygwin, do you? With respect, Peter P.S. - If there have already been discussions or if there already exists documentation on why ash vs. bash (I gather it is for performance reasons), I'd appreciate (a) pointer(s) so I could better learn the history so I don't re-hash settled issues. --- Christopher Faylor wrote: > I really don't understand why using CURDIR isn't > the ultimate solution here. If you can mess with > your mount table or copy bash to sh, then > you really should be able to also change your > Makefile to use $(CURDIR) rather than $$PWD. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- 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/