On 3/31/06, Shaddy Baddah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > On 3/30/2006 10:09 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote: > > That would suggest that you should be producing your own version of > > make for your own personal needs. > > Ok, fair enough. Sorry if I came of demanding (it wasn't my intention). > > cgf, as the maintainer of the current Cygwin make release (version > 3.80-1), could you assist me please? > > The problem as I see it is that GNU make was ported in these earlier > releases, but 1) the source was not modified with atomic patches, 2) the > patches never made it upstream (not saying there wasn't an attempt. I > don't know). > > Am I right on point 1? If not, is there a patch set that I can look at > to make the porting easier? > > At this point, you might be asking why I don't merge the 3.80 to 3.81 > patch back into the cygwin source. It is because of point 2. I would > like to "give a stab" at trying to get any porting patches accepted > upstream. Am I breaking new ground here, or has it been tried and failed > previously? What would be life without challenges. If 4.0 dosn't worry you find a rock and hibernate underneath :) Seriously - problems there to be solved. No reason to worry some problems are even fun otherwise people would stick to living on trees eating leaves. Alex http://www.aiengine.org
-- 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/
