X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 15:57:29 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-no-personal-reply-please 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: <20060816195729.GE7674@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> <20060816155054 DOT GY20467 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 63 DOT 0608161418370 DOT 9095 AT access1 DOT cims DOT nyu DOT edu> <6 DOT 2 DOT 3 DOT 4 DOT 2 DOT 20060816144036 DOT 09695af0 AT pop DOT nycap DOT rr DOT com> <Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 63 DOT 0608161543520 DOT 14156 AT access1 DOT cims DOT nyu DOT edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.63.0608161543520.14156@access1.cims.nyu.edu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11
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, Aug 16, 2006 at 03:52:59PM -0400, Igor Peshansky wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, William A. Hoffman wrote:
>>At 02:20 PM 8/16/2006, Igor Peshansky wrote:
>>>On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>>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).
>>
>>Paul suggested adding the define HAVE_DOS_PATHS to the cygwin build of
>>gnu make:
>>
>>http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2006-07/msg00882.html
>>
>>Christopher countered with,
>>
>>"There is no advantage using cygwin if you want to use a Makefile which
>>contains MS-DOS paths.  Using MinGW makes perfect sense in that case.
>>Despite having suggested this repeatedly, it seems some users are still
>>not clear on this concept."
>
>You've already mentioned a situation where MinGW does not do the right
>thing (albeit on the wrong list).

...and we don't really know if it is a true "does not do the right
thing" since we aren't experts in the software in question.

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/