> > - have the patch made part of the upstream gnu make > > That's the best solution of all. The whole "problem" is that the > current Cygwin make maintainer has no fun to work on this issue. > Everybody else is free to put a bit of time and sweat into this and get > this for free firther on. I'm still wondering why people don't go this > way instead of discussing this problem, which is none, IMHO, to death.
I agree with Corinna here, and others that have said it. There is a list of us that find this patch useful. We should determine what the effort would be to get this patch in the upstream source. Does anyone have time for this right now? Corinna, I can speak for myself, the reason this issue is discussed to death is because of the reaction from the Cygwin people. Free software users have an implicit association with friendly communication with the software developers. In this instance, the cygwin maintainers (or higher ups) are pretty much belittling there users and/or saying there is no problem. To many of us, there is a problem. I think your solution is well stated. Does anyone know who was maintaining the old patch to make, so that a discussion with that person could be made more substantial on a technical level? Bob Rossi -- 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/
