On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 01:44:06PM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote: >> > - have the patch made part of the upstream gnu make >>That's the best solution 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. > >I agree with Corinna here, and others that have said it. There is a >list of us that find this patch useful. We should determine what the >effort would be to get this patch in the upstream source. Does anyone >have time for this right now?
Actually Brian Dessent made this suggestion on July 27, three days after I released the new version of make and announced that MS-DOS paths were no longer supported. You even responded in the thread where this happened. I expressed some concern that there had been problems with valid linux makefiles being confused by colon handling but Paul Smith opined that this shouldn't be that much of a problem. Eli Zaretski has responded a couple of times with information about how make works on MS-DOS like systems (Cygwin is only marginally a MS-DOS like system). >Corinna, I can speak for myself, the reason this issue is discussed to >death is because of the reaction from the Cygwin people. Free software >users have an implicit association with friendly communication with the >software developers. "Free software" users should expect that they will receive source code. Anything else is just gravy. >In this instance, the cygwin maintainers (or higher ups) are pretty >much belittling there users and/or saying there is no problem. To many >of us, there is a problem. No cygwin maintainer is belittling the fact that people are experiencing problems. What is being remarked upon is the people who seem to be complaining about the change in behavior without attempting to use any of the proposed solutions. >I think your solution is well stated. Does anyone know who was >maintaining the old patch to make, so that a discussion with that >person could be made more substantial on a technical level? And ^^^this^^^ is a perfect example of why this discussion is so frustrating. Does someone *really* have to tell you who was "maintaining the old patch"? If you really need to be told this then you really don't have the right to an opinion on this subject at all since you clearly haven't been paying any attention. 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/