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/