This is the mail archive of the cygwin mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81


On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 11:35:50AM -0400, William A. Hoffman wrote:
>At 10:41 AM 8/16/2006, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>On Aug 16 10:14, William A. Hoffman wrote:
>>>cgf wrote:
>>>...or offer money. That carries more weight than complaining. :-)
>>>
>>>However that doesn't work in all cases. This I am reasonably confident 
>>>is one of them. But as a general rule...
>>
>>>>No, it would work in this case, but I hesitate to name my price since
>>>>it will surely make me sound even more evil.
>
>I assumed since cgf worked for Red hat, that his offer to take money
>would go to Red Hat.  My mistake.

I don't work for Red Hat.

>>> - have the patch made part of the upstream gnu make
>>
>>That's the best solutiion of all.  The whole "problem" is that the
>>current Cygwin make maintainer has no fun to work on this issue.
>>Everybody else is free to put a bit of time and sweat into this and get
>>this for free firther on.  I'm still wondering why people don't go this
>>way instead of discussing this problem, which is none, IMHO, to death.
>
>OK, I will move off this discussion, and try to work with the upstream
>gnu make.  It is the only option left.  Although I am not convinced
>that this is not an issue unique to cygwin.  Cygwin supports both posix
>and windows paths.  Unix environments do not support windows paths, so
>no interest from the upstream gnu make there.  Only support for windows
>paths works already in upstream gnu make, so no interest there.  It is
>only on cygwin where this makes sense.

There has been a response from GNU make maintainers *in*this*very*thread*.

Even if it was "unique to Cygwin", have you heard of something called an
"#ifdef"?

>>> The point I am trying to make is that the one option that is off the table,
>>> is taking over the maintenance of the make package in cygwin and doing
>>> the patch yourself.
>>
>>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.

How do you know it is "a small patch"?  Have you actually looked at the
code?  I find that unlikely.

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/


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]