X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 11:35:47 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81 Message-ID: <20060816153546.GG13147@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <467C77F6373BDE4BB16A3E8A62C0395567A111 AT Exchserv DOT hatteras DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <467C77F6373BDE4BB16A3E8A62C0395567A111@Exchserv.hatteras.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: 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 On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 11:03:47AM -0400, Brian Hassink wrote: >Respectfully, > >Doesn't this just push the maintenance effort elsewhere? Suppose the >upstream maintainer has "no fun" either? Read the mailing list archives. >There are obviously a lot of users in the cygwin community using this >feature of cygwin make and would like to see it continue to be >supported. > >Why can't a new maintainer step forward to do so? If the interests of >the current maintainer diverge from those of the larger community, then >perhaps it's time for the maintainer to consider stepping aside? > >Again, I'm saying/asking this respectfully. I appreciate the respectfullness but I'd feel really respected if you had indicated that you'd at least tried any of the many solutions to this issue. So far, the responses just seem to be coming from change-averse people who don't read cygwin-announce and update their systems using setup.exe in an almost knee-jerk fashion. The more I see the reaction to this change, the more I'm convinced that people in the Cygwin "user community" need a wakeup call. While you see a bunch of people who are "impacted" by my decision. I see people who don't understand what free software really is and don't practice anything remotely like safe software practices. So, perhaps an ancillary benefit of this change to 'make' is that it got people looking at how they use cygwin and thinking about the assumptions in their dependency on same. If the change to make (and cygwin's change to exe handling ) really does result in something like a "cygwin fork" (which is hard to imagine given the obvious fact that no one wants to touch source code) then I guess that will be a lesson for me. Otherwise, I'm going to wait out this tempest and see what happens when the tea cools down in a few months. 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/