On Tue, 5 Oct 2004, Gerrit P. Haase wrote: > Hello Igor, > > >> Use managed mounts to avoid renaming. > > > Please don't, at least not for the final package. I'd be very wary of > > putting packages into the distribution that would require managed mounts > > to build. > > Why? You can handle the build from a buildscript including mounting > and umounting so you wouldn't even take notice of it. What at all do > we have and use Cygwin for if we don't make use of its features?
I'm thinking of some people who'd want to use non-Cygwin tools to look at and debug the package source. NTEmacs comes to mind. > > Contact the upstream maintainers, and tell them that their package > > is non-portable, and won't build on non-case-preserving filesystems. > > Ask them to change the name of either control.h or Control.h. In > > my experience, most projects (with the exception of a few that are > > openly hostile towards any Windows tool) will accomodate Cygwin by > > renaming the file (especially if it's a generated file). > > E.g. The "nail" maintainer with his aux.c file;) That's one of'em, yes... :-) > But then the cygwin xcoral maintainer tobe needs to wait until a new > upstream release is available? Using managed mounts solves this issue > in the best of all possible ways how to do s.th. like this. Well, I guess a managed mount is okay as an interim measure until the upstream package has the renamed file. But I'm uneasy about using this as a standard way to build a package. Igor -- http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/ |\ _,,,---,,_ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ [EMAIL PROTECTED] |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D. '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow! "Happiness lies in being privileged to work hard for long hours in doing whatever you think is worth doing." -- Dr. Jubal Harshaw