X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 14:20:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: Igor Peshansky <pechtcha AT cs DOT nyu DOT edu>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81
In-Reply-To: <20060816155054.GY20467@calimero.vinschen.de>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.63.0608161418370.9095@access1.cims.nyu.edu>
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>  <20060816155054 DOT GY20467 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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 Wed, 16 Aug 2006, Corinna Vinschen wrote:

> On Aug 16 11:35, William A. Hoffman wrote:
>
> > >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.   I also think this is a unique cygwin issue and
> > the upstream maintainers may not be interested in it.
>
> http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2006-07/msg00879.html
>
> That doesn't actually sound like the make maintainer is not interested
> in patches...

Not only that, but the upstream maintainer actually suggested a couple of
avenues of investigation to make the patch smaller by using functionality
already built into the upstream make.  All that remains is for someone to
actually "do the work" (tm).
	Igor
-- 
				http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_	    pechtcha AT cs DOT nyu DOT edu | igor AT watson DOT ibm DOT com
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		Igor Peshansky, Ph.D. (name changed!)
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		old name: Igor Pechtchanski
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

"Las! je suis sot... -Mais non, tu ne l'es pas, puisque tu t'en rends compte."
"But no -- you are no fool; you call yourself a fool, there's proof enough in
that!" -- Rostand, "Cyrano de Bergerac"

--
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/