X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 11:49:20 -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: <20060816154920.GA1705@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> 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> <20060816144110 DOT GX20467 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <6 DOT 2 DOT 3 DOT 4 DOT 2 DOT 20060816111421 DOT 0b446b60 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: <6.2.3.4.2.20060816111421.0b446b60@pop.nycap.rr.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 11:35:50AM -0400, William A. Hoffman wrote: >At 10:41 AM 8/16/2006, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >>On Aug 16 10:14, William A. Hoffman wrote: >>>cgf wrote: >>>...or offer money. That carries more weight than complaining. :-) >>> >>>However that doesn't work in all cases. This I am reasonably confident >>>is one of them. But as a general rule... >> >>>>No, it would work in this case, but I hesitate to name my price since >>>>it will surely make me sound even more evil. > >I assumed since cgf worked for Red hat, that his offer to take money >would go to Red Hat. My mistake. I don't work for Red Hat. >>> - 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. > >OK, I will move off this discussion, and try to work with the upstream >gnu make. It is the only option left. Although I am not convinced >that this is not an issue unique to cygwin. Cygwin supports both posix >and windows paths. Unix environments do not support windows paths, so >no interest from the upstream gnu make there. Only support for windows >paths works already in upstream gnu make, so no interest there. It is >only on cygwin where this makes sense. There has been a response from GNU make maintainers *in*this*very*thread*. Even if it was "unique to Cygwin", have you heard of something called an "#ifdef"? >>> 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. > >Because it would be easy. A small patch and everything goes back >to the way it was. How do you know it is "a small patch"? Have you actually looked at the code? I find that unlikely. 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/