> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Korn
> Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 10:38 AM
> To: cygwin@cygwin.com
> Subject: RE: pwd vs $PWD, bash, cygwin vs Linux
>
> HELLO? CAN ANYONE HEAR ME? Testing,
>
To clarify:
1) The correct long-term solution to the problem of bash/ash
incompatibilities is to modify the makefile to avoid the problem.
If the Makefile is yours, then you are done. If the makefile is
from someone else, then you provide the someone else with a patch.
If you can be guaranteed
Original Message
>From: Christopher Faylor
>Sent: 04 May 2005 18:13
> The points are still valid, ", however. I don't see any reason to raise
> global concerns about makefile interoperability with linux just because
> one person has a trivially-solveable problem with a couple of makefile
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 05:50:14PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>Original Message
>>From: Peter Farley
>>Sent: 04 May 2005 17:30
>
>> WHOA there. I think we have a slight failure to
>> communicate. I am NOT the OP, I was just chiming in
>> on the conversation
>
> Oops, so you are! Umm, I me
Original Message
>From: Christopher Faylor
>Sent: 04 May 2005 17:04
> On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 04:38:08PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> Maybe because fixing the Makefile means not having to remember to type
> "SHELL=/bin/bash.exe" every time you invoke make?
s,every time you invoke make,on
Original Message
>From: Peter Farley
>Sent: 04 May 2005 17:30
> WHOA there. I think we have a slight failure to
> communicate. I am NOT the OP, I was just chiming in
> on the conversation
Oops, so you are! Umm, I mean, "So you aren't!" Ermmm.. guess I mean
"Pardon me for not checki
On Wed, 4 May 2005, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 04:38:08PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> >Original Message
> >>From: Peter Farley
> >>Sent: 04 May 2005 16:06
> >
> >>But what if it is *not* your Makefile, but someone else's, e.g. the
> >>many GNU source packages that e
WHOA there. I think we have a slight failure to
communicate. I am NOT the OP, I was just chiming in
on the conversation (I should have said PMFJI right up
front, apologies for forgetting that).
That said, I understand your position better now,
especially with Dave's workaround (perfectly
accepta
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 04:38:08PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>Original Message
>>From: Peter Farley
>>Sent: 04 May 2005 16:06
>
>>But what if it is *not* your Makefile, but someone else's, e.g. the
>>many GNU source packages that expect bash behavior? Surely you don't
>>intend that ordinary
Original Message
>From: Peter Farley
>Sent: 04 May 2005 16:06
> But what if it is *not* your Makefile, but someone
> else's, e.g. the many GNU source packages that expect
> bash behavior? Surely you don't intend that ordinary
> users (well, OK, anyone compiling from a source
> package isn
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 08:05:40AM -0700, Peter Farley wrote:
>But what if it is *not* your Makefile,
I just went back and reread this thread. It isn't exactly clear that
this was not your Makefile. You mentioned a "test setup" which seemed
to imply that you were using your own Makefiles.
>but
But what if it is *not* your Makefile, but someone
else's, e.g. the many GNU source packages that expect
bash behavior? Surely you don't intend that ordinary
users (well, OK, anyone compiling from a source
package isn't really "ordinary") should modify every
package maintained by GNU in order to m
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 09:27:15AM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>On Wed, 4 May 2005, John Williams wrote:
>
>> Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>
>> > > > In this case, the operative observation is bash != ash. PWD is a
>> > > > bash construct. You would be much better off just using the gnu
>> > >
On Wed, 4 May 2005, John Williams wrote:
> Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
> > > > In this case, the operative observation is bash != ash. PWD is a
> > > > bash construct. You would be much better off just using the gnu
> > > > make "CURDIR" variable. Changing PWD to CURDIR in your examples
> > > >
Original Message
>From: John Williams
>Sent: 04 May 2005 06:20
> OK - I see the confusion. Make is spawning ash as the subshell, not
> bash. Now everything you said makes sense. Out of interest, can that
> behaviour be modified at the runtime/user/Makefile level?
The make documentati
> Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
> >>>In this case, the operative observation is bash != ash. PWD is a
> >>>bash construct. You would be much better off just using
> the gnu make
> >>>"CURDIR" variable. Changing PWD to CURDIR in your examples makes
> >>>things work as you'd expect.
> >>
> >>Th
Christopher Faylor wrote:
In this case, the operative observation is bash != ash. PWD is a bash
construct. You would be much better off just using the gnu make
"CURDIR" variable. Changing PWD to CURDIR in your examples makes things
work as you'd expect.
Thanks for the quick response and workarou
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 02:32:07PM +1000, John Williams wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 11:08:43AM +1000, John Williams wrote:
>>
>>>Essentially under Cygwin the PWD variable seems to be "frozen" at its
>>>value upon first launching Make from the commandline, while under
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 11:08:43AM +1000, John Williams wrote:
Essentially under Cygwin the PWD variable seems to be "frozen" at its
value upon first launching Make from the commandline, while under Linux
it is being updated for each child process spawned by `make -C XXX`
> >I know that Cygwin != Linux, however is it a reasonable expectation
> >that under the same shells, the same behaviour should apply?
>
> In this case, the operative observation is bash != ash. PWD is a bash
> construct. You would be much better off just using the gnu make
> "CURDIR" variable.
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 11:08:43AM +1000, John Williams wrote:
>Essentially under Cygwin the PWD variable seems to be "frozen" at its
>value upon first launching Make from the commandline, while under Linux
>it is being updated for each child process spawned by `make -C XXX`
>
>I know that Cygwin !
Hello,
I am resurrecting a topic that has been discussed before, but there
doesn't seem to be a clear resolution (at least not clear to me!). It
relates to the behaviour of the PWD variable in the case of multiply
nested Makefiles. it was touched upon e.g. here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/cy
22 matches
Mail list logo
