On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 12:34:16AM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 17:30:50 -0400 >> From: Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Cc: >> >> >One thing: my original idea was to have a configure option that >> >enabled the DOS path capabilities. I note some here are advocating a >> >configure test which simply sets the HAVE_DOS_PATHS option if Cygwin >> >is detected, rather than leaving it up to the user. Is it the case >> >that people might want to build a Cygwin version of make _WITHOUT_ DOS >> >path support? >> > >> >Something to think about anyway. >> >> I'm all for flexibility. I suspect that this will have to be the default >> for cygwin, however, or we will hear wails of despair from any brave soul >> who tries to build from source. > >100% agreement. The less obscure switches with hard-to-explain >effects, the less FAQs asked on the various mailing lists. We should >introduce such a switch only if we cannot avoid it (i.e. if supporting >DOS file names breaks something very valuable in the Cygwin version).
I'm not sure if this is what you're saying but I wouldn't mind an option but only if (and I can't believe I'm saying this) the default is --with-dos-paths rather than --without-dos-paths. cgf _______________________________________________ Make-w32 mailing list Make-w32@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/make-w32
