But what if it is *not* your Makefile, but someone else's, e.g. the many GNU source packages that expect bash behavior? Surely you don't intend that ordinary users (well, OK, anyone compiling from a source package isn't really "ordinary") should modify every package maintained by GNU in order to make it under cygwin, do you?
With respect, Peter P.S. - If there have already been discussions or if there already exists documentation on why ash vs. bash (I gather it is for performance reasons), I'd appreciate (a) pointer(s) so I could better learn the history so I don't re-hash settled issues. --- Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <Snipped> > I really don't understand why using CURDIR isn't > the ultimate solution here. If you can mess with > your mount table or copy bash to sh, then > you really should be able to also change your > Makefile to use $(CURDIR) rather than $$PWD. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- 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/