At 01:21 PM 8/17/2006, Christopher Faylor wrote: >On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 12:38:29PM -0400, Bill Hoffman wrote: >>At 11:42 AM 8/17/2006, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>>On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 10:23:35AM -0400, Bill Hoffman wrote > >I'm not a make maintainer and don't really care about this one way or >the other. I was just pointing out that I thought it made sense to do >things this way. Personally, I think that things like "#ifdef >__<OSNAME>__" to code, should be avoided although I don't see a way >around it in this case, if the current way of handling things is >maintained
I am not a make maintainer either, and care even less than you. At this point I think we are nit-picking. The changes are relatively small, and there are several ways to get it to work. Is there a general buy in for the concept of this change? Or am I just wasting my time tweaking the patch. The nit-picking issues should really be decided by a make maintainer which means someone other than you or me. I will await instruction/comment from a make maintainer before creating a third patch. Or perhaps a make maintainer can make the changes as they fit. In summary, HAVE_DOS_PATHS needs a few minor changes to compile under cygwin. The patch given and the emails show a few ways to do this change. The next step is to make HAVE_DOS_PATHS the default for cygwin builds. Is that acceptable to the gnu make maintainers? I will be willing to test any other patches. -Bill _______________________________________________ Make-w32 mailing list Make-w32@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/make-w32
