> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 17:41:28 -0400 > From: Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > 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]> > >> > >> 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.
I'm saying two things: (a) I agree that the default should be with DOS paths, and (b) we need an option to turn DOS paths off only if the default behavior causes trouble in some situations. _______________________________________________ Make-w32 mailing list Make-w32@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/make-w32
