This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-talk
mailing list for the cygwin project.
RE: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81
- From: Igor Peshansky <pechtcha at cs dot nyu dot edu>
- To: The Cygwin-Talk Maiming List <cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:38:07 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: RE: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81
- References: <00fb01c6c218$9729a3d0$a501a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM>
- Reply-to: The Cygwin-Talk Maiming List <cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com>
- Reply-to: The Cygwin-Talk Maiming List <cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com>
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 17 August 2006 17:12, mwoehlke wrote:
>
> > Igor Peshansky wrote:
> >> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, mwoehlke wrote:
> >>> Igor Peshansky wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Igor Peshansky wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, Igor Peshansky wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Alternatively, you can try to implement a $(cygpath ...) function in
> >>>>>>> make and submit *that* to the upstream maintainers.
> >>>>>> FWIW, I don't think such a function is a good idea, and if it is
> >>>>>> proposed on the Make mailing list, I will probably object to it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The reason is that adding such a function goes against portability of
> >>>>>> Makefiles across different ports of Make,
> >>>>> ...which you would already have with cl commands and DOS paths...
> >>>> Actually, sorry, I've misread the above. Doesn't GNU make already have a
> >>>> plethora of functions not present in other makes? What's wrong with one
> >>>> more? If "cygpath" is too system-specific a name, let's pick one that
> >>>> isn't ("pathconv"?).
> >>>
> >>> Hey! Get off my computer! :-)
> >>>
> >>> ("pathconv" is exactly the name I gave to my tool that hides the
> >>> differences between Cygwin's path conversion and Interix's path
> >>> conversion.)
> >>
> >> Eh, get a better firewall. :-)
> >
> > I'll talk to my IT department. ;p
>
> Relax, we already did it.
>
> In your name. From your computer.
>
> Then we went into theirs and sent you a reply, but it's awfully rude.
> You don't want to read it. So we deleted the mail spool.
>
> However, we have installed a firewall on your PC for you. Just one
> thing, though, I think we put it in the wrong way round. I think we
> just protected the rest of the internet from you. So you may not see
> this reply.
Oh, and Cygwin may not work too well now, since we've installed
Symantec...
Igor
--
http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
|\ _,,,---,,_ pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu | igor@watson.ibm.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"