Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 14:18:04 -0400
From: Bob Rossi <bob_rossi AT cox DOT net>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81
Message-ID: <20060816181804.GC7538@brasko.net>
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> <20060816154920 DOT GA1705 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <6 DOT 2 DOT 3 DOT 4 DOT 2 DOT 20060816131917 DOT 0b452690 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: <6.2.3.4.2.20060816131917.0b452690@pop.nycap.rr.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 01:52:23PM -0400, William A. Hoffman wrote:
> At 11:49 AM 8/16/2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> 
> 
> >How do you know it is "a small patch"?  Have you actually looked at the
> >code?  I find that unlikely.
> 
> I had not looked at the source, but figured it most likely was not that big
> a change.  I now have looked at the sources, and minus the makefile changes,
> the diff between the upstream 3.80 and 3.81 is about 450 lines of diff.
> Although if you removed the command.com changes, and only used sh to launch
> stuff, the changes would be much smaller than that.
> 
> I can see why it would not be accepted upstream as is:
> 
> ChangeLog.RedHat:       * vpath.c: use cygwin32_win32_to_posix_path_list() in
> ChangeLog.RedHat:       cygwin.dll library to accept both posix and win32 paths
> 
> It makes a call to cygwin.dll.
> 
> So, I suppose a new patch would be needed up stream that did not have the 
> command.com stuff ( I don't think it is being missed).   The new patch would only
> put in support for drive letters to work, and I would think that it would be much
> smaller. 

Hi Bill,

Do you plan on creating a patch to make that would provide the 3.80
functionality?

Bob Rossi

--
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/