X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <442CFB2A.8090300@mycom-int.fr.invalid> Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 11:49:30 +0200 From: Shaddy Baddah Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: GNU make 3.81rc2 available and I'm worried References: <20060330200956 DOT GG28682 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> In-Reply-To: <20060330200956.GG28682@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 Hi, On 3/30/2006 10:09 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote: > That would suggest that you should be producing your own version of > make for your own personal needs. Ok, fair enough. Sorry if I came of demanding (it wasn't my intention). cgf, as the maintainer of the current Cygwin make release (version 3.80-1), could you assist me please? The problem as I see it is that GNU make was ported in these earlier releases, but 1) the source was not modified with atomic patches, 2) the patches never made it upstream (not saying there wasn't an attempt. I don't know). Am I right on point 1? If not, is there a patch set that I can look at to make the porting easier? At this point, you might be asking why I don't merge the 3.80 to 3.81 patch back into the cygwin source. It is because of point 2. I would like to "give a stab" at trying to get any porting patches accepted upstream. Am I breaking new ground here, or has it been tried and failed previously? Regards, Shaddy -- 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/