On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 03:57:12PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote: >On 14 August 2006 14:17, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 08:47:04PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote: >>>Incidentally, it's also part of my plan to maintain it with the old >>>cygwin make DOS path-handling patches, which I hope will satisfy a lot >>>of the current complaints on the main list. :D >> >>I'm not too wild about having two different makes with two different >>capabilities in the distribution. >> > ><shrugs> I was proposing to take all those dos-path-handling gripes off >your shoulders.
It won't take them off my shoulders. It will just require more explanation. >Put it another way: what kind of confusion or other problem could you >see arising? Perhaps I can think of a way to mitigate it. "My makefile doesn't work!" "You're using MS-DOS filenames. Use remake instead." "What's remake? Why do I have to do this? Why can't I use GNU make? It seems to me..." As opposed to: "My makefile doesn't work!" "You're using MS-DOS filenames. Fix your makefile." The point is that we want people to get out of the habit of using MS-DOS filenames under cygwin whereever possible. It was actually a bug that allowed the previous version of make to use MS-DOS paths without specifying the --win32 option on the command line. >I don't see why this should be inherently any more confusing than >having both make and scons in the distro; they're two separate packages >with differing names and similar functionality. I believe that I had objections when bashdb was first proposed because there were two packages with one code base and two different maintainers. While we have that now for vim, and maybe a small number of other packages, I don't think it is a good idea to promulgate this kind of arrangement. cgf