X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 16:41:10 +0200
From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81
Message-ID: <20060816144110.GX20467@calimero.vinschen.de>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <6 DOT 2 DOT 3 DOT 4 DOT 2 DOT 20060815151104 DOT 0b40e260 AT pop DOT nycap DOT rr DOT com> <01b901c6c116$21259430$a501a8c0 AT CAM DOT ARTIMI DOT COM> <6 DOT 2 DOT 3 DOT 4 DOT 2 DOT 20060816091525 DOT 0ab90af0 AT pop DOT nycap DOT rr DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20060816091525.0ab90af0@pop.nycap.rr.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2i
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On Aug 16 10:14, William A. Hoffman wrote:
> So, there seem to be three options on the table:
> 
> - pay redhat to put the patch back

The Cygwin net distro is not a Red Hat thingy.  It's an entirely
volunteer driven project.  If you want a package being "fixed" for you,
it's up to the current maintainer, not Red Hat.  As far as Red Hat is
concerned, you can purchase Red Hat's supported Cygwin distribution
which comes with user support.

> - have the patch made part of the upstream gnu make

That's the best solutiion of all.  The whole "problem" is that the
current Cygwin make maintainer has no fun to work on this issue.
Everybody else is free to put a bit of time and sweat into this and get
this for free firther on.  I'm still wondering why people don't go this
way instead of discussing this problem, which is none, IMHO, to death.

> The point I am trying to make is that the one option that is off the table,
> is taking over the maintenance of the make package in cygwin and doing
> the patch yourself.

I'm honestly confused.  Why would it better to have another Cygwin
distro maintainer for a package instead of getting the patches included
upstream?  This makes no sense at all.  If my head wouldn't be fixed to
my neck, it would actually fall down from all the shaking now.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

--
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/