On 22 July 2006 02:04, Joachim Achtzehnter wrote: > mwoehlke wrote:
>> Michael Hirsch wrote: >>> Here is a sample Makefile that breaks with Gnu Make 3.81-1 under >>> Cygwin, but works fine with Gnu Make 3.80-1. >>> [ ... snip ... ] >>> Was this a deliberate break with backwards compatibility? >> Yes. See <http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-announce/2006-07/msg00008.html>. > Unfortunately, many of us deal with huge cross-platform 3rd-party makefile > collections that are partially auto-generated, sometimes even on-the-fly, > I just had to deal with such a messy system and the new Cygwin make doesn't > work. Even though this collection of makefiles was initially written on a > POSIX system it still got into trouble with DOS paths because some of the > tools it calls to generate makefiles return platform-specific paths. So > this works fine on a POSIX system, worked fine on Win2000 with the old > make, but now I had to understand complicated sed programs to add extra > platform-specific sed transformations to convert paths returned by other > cross-platform tools to something the new make accepts. > > There was also some difference in newline handling which required another > set of sed changes, arghh! > > All of this was definitely inconvenient! And it was not caused by somebody > putting non-POSIX paths in a makefile. Well, to be fair, it was caused by someone implementing a system that made use of utilities that put non-POSIX paths in a makefile. It didn't 'just happen', it was the consequence of a deliberate set of design and toolset-selection decisions. > Of course, after fixing all this it still doesn't work, as mentioned in > another post, make crashes with threadlist_ix -1, so I still have to go > back to the older version, even after all the work. :-( Which begs the question: given that you were working on such a large and complex makefile system, and given that it had non-POSIX paths in a makefile, and given that it wasn't broke and didn't need fixing ... ... why on EARTH did you deliberately go and upgrade to a new version of make that doesn't support non-POSIX paths? cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today.... -- 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/