Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 16:58:58 -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: <20060821205858.GB31847@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 20060821135043 DOT 0a05b580 AT pop DOT nycap DOT rr DOT com> <003d01c6c553$af945850$a501a8c0 AT CAM DOT ARTIMI DOT COM> <6 DOT 2 DOT 3 DOT 4 DOT 2 DOT 20060821153350 DOT 0a0dbe30 AT pop DOT nycap DOT rr DOT com> <44EA1678 DOT 7080309 AT equate DOT dyndns DOT org> <6 DOT 2 DOT 3 DOT 4 DOT 2 DOT 20060821162839 DOT 0a0c02f0 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: <6.2.3.4.2.20060821162839.0a0c02f0@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 Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 04:40:03PM -0400, William A. Hoffman wrote:
>My suggestion was, to send notice of the coming change before the
>change was made, not after.  That is all.  IMO, the make issue is over.
>I was just trying to make a suggestion to avoid flame wars like this in
>the future.  I don't think it is enjoyable or productive for anyone
>involved.

I guess I can't get away without responding to this.

It is very odd to me that someone who wandered into the discussion late
and is still asking for clarification about what happened (in the
make-w32 mailing list) would feel empowered to suggest that earlier
communication would have helped.  However:

1) I thought (and still do think) that MinGW make was an acceptable
   solution for people who use only MS-DOS paths.

2) The notion that the Cygwin user community would have done something
   proactive and submitted a patch upstream is obviously false. 

  a) You wouldn't have done it since you weren't paying attention.
  b) No one who has responded for the last month has shown any
     inclination towards doing anything proactive like that.

3) Complaints about MS-DOS paths aside, I did want to get a new version
   of make released because people had been reporting fixes in make 3.81
   for some time.  I'm not interested in delaying a release for something
   like MS-DOS paths.  I've frequently gone on record about not caring much
   about using MS-DOSisms in what is supposed to be a UNIX/Linux-like
   environment.

So, as you can see, I do not agree with your suggestion, I have no plans
on doing anything like this for make in the future, and suggest that,
therefore, there is no reason to continue with this "What If" scenario.

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/