Dave Korn wrote:
> Because I do not agree with your suggestion.
You don't agree that this is the cygwin list, not the mingw list?
Some people are trying to solve an issue with cygwin's build of make by
discussing possible solutions. Those who have nothing to contribute to
this effort would do well to just ignore this thread instead of
responding to every second posting with remarks like this. We know that
you dislike DOS paths (and people who use DOS paths with cygwin too?),
so there is no need to repeatly point this out. On the specific point
above, it is rather disingenious if MingW make is proposed as a solution
to somebody's problem and when it is then explained that this isn't the
case the topic becomes inappropriate. It is also not nice, to say the
least, to omit crucial detail from quoted text, such as this:
> You mentioned MinGW as an alternative, it does not work. Also,
> someone on this list asked me a question, and I answered it.
If MinGW is off-topic it is off-topic for everybody, not just those on
one side of the argument.
Again, my main point: It is ok to ignore a thread you're not interested in.
Joachim
--
work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (http://www.netacquire.com)
home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (http://www.kraut.ca)
--
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/
