> Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 17:31:31 -0400
> From: "Paul D. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc:
>
> Hm. I just can't think of any but the most obscure cases where this is
> true. The DOS pathname handling in vanilla GNU make, as far as I know,
> is very specific: if and ONLY if the first character of
%% "John W. Eaton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
jwe> On 28-Jul-2006, Paul D. Smith wrote:
| This would be very tricky: right now all the code to do DOS vs. POSIX
| pathnames is controlled through #ifdefs, so it's a compile-time thing.
| Changing it to a runtime thing would be a lot of work,
%% Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Or is there something special going on that means this won't work?
cf> I think this has been answered later in the thread, but the short answer
cf> is - the MinGW make won't recognize the cygwin mount table or symlinks,
cf> so you can't
Michael Eager wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 05:09:16PM -0400, Paul D. Smith wrote:
In fact, I'm wondering if there is an advantage to building GNU make
using the Cygwin environment, vs. using a native MingW (for example)
build of GNU make? I'm afraid I'm woefully ign
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 11:28:42AM -0400, Igor Peshansky wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 10:43:30AM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote:
> > >> Well, the whole point of cygwin is to give a POSIX-compatible
> > >> environment in win32. So it's aiming to be l
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 10:43:30AM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote:
> >> Well, the whole point of cygwin is to give a POSIX-compatible
> >> environment in win32. So it's aiming to be like linux, not windows.
> >> This means that if something like a makefile
On 28-Jul-2006, Paul D. Smith wrote:
| This would be very tricky: right now all the code to do DOS vs. POSIX
| pathnames is controlled through #ifdefs, so it's a compile-time thing.
| Changing it to a runtime thing would be a lot of work, I think... the
OK, but I still think it should be implemen
On 28-Jul-2006, Chris Taylor wrote:
| So even if the DOS #ifdef was enabled, we'd be back at the point of
| having patches to attempt to fix this behaviour.
| Unless there was some way of having two versions of make - one with this
| behaviour and one without, controlled by /etc/alternatives per
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 10:43:30AM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote:
>> Well, the whole point of cygwin is to give a POSIX-compatible
>> environment in win32. So it's aiming to be like linux, not windows.
>> This means that if something like a makefile parses fine in linux, but
>> not in cygwin (barring li
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 09:56:20AM -0400, Paul D. Smith wrote:
>%% Christopher Faylor writes:
>cf> If you want to use a Makefile which works in a Cygwin environment,
>cf> however, then obviously you need to build it with a Cygwin gcc.
>
>You'll have to forgive my virtually complete ignorance of all
> Well, the whole point of cygwin is to give a POSIX-compatible
> environment in win32. So it's aiming to be like linux, not windows.
> This means that if something like a makefile parses fine in linux, but
> not in cygwin (barring linker stuff), something is wrong.
Yeah, what's wrong is that cl
Paul D. Smith wrote:
%% "John W. Eaton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
jwe> On 28-Jul-2006, Paul D. Smith wrote:
| Regardless, I still wonder whether my idea of building make for a POSIX
| environment with Cygwin, but setting HAVE_DOS_PATHS explicitly, would
| work.
jwe> If this could c
%% "John W. Eaton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
jwe> On 28-Jul-2006, Paul D. Smith wrote:
| Regardless, I still wonder whether my idea of building make for a POSIX
| environment with Cygwin, but setting HAVE_DOS_PATHS explicitly, would
| work.
jwe> If this could cause some valid Makefil
On 28-Jul-2006, Paul D. Smith wrote:
| Regardless, I still wonder whether my idea of building make for a POSIX
| environment with Cygwin, but setting HAVE_DOS_PATHS explicitly, would
| work.
If this could cause some valid Makefiles to do the wrong thing as cgf
suggests might happen, then can we a
%% Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
cf> There is no advantage using cygwin if you want to use a Makefile
cf> which contains MS-DOS paths. Using MinGW makes perfect sense in
cf> that case. Despite having suggested this repeatedly, it seems
cf> some users are still not clear
> Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 17:09:16 -0400
> From: "Paul D. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: cygwin@cygwin.com, bug-make@gnu.org
>
> I believe that this support is limited to handling drive letters without
> choking on the ":", actually: IIRC the native support still requires
> forward slashes (/) ra
William Sheehan wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
There is no advantage using cygwin if you want to use a Makefile
>> which contains MS-DOS paths. Using MinGW
>> makes perfect sense in that case.
I strongly disagree with this statement. A primary benefit of using Cygwin
is that so many Linux
On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 05:16:38PM -0700, Michael Eager wrote:
>There are two equally unpleasant resolutions recommended: either
>install two products (Cygwin and MinGW) or retain a back-level version
>of make, forgoing all future bug fixes. Neither are very good, but
>I've opted for the second ch
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 05:09:16PM -0400, Paul D. Smith wrote:
In fact, I'm wondering if there is an advantage to building GNU make
using the Cygwin environment, vs. using a native MingW (for example)
build of GNU make? I'm afraid I'm woefully ignorant about the detail
> I can imagine that the immediate response to this complaint will be "fix
> your Makefiles to work with Cygwin if it's such an important component." As
> others have mentioned, this is no simple task in very large Makefile systems
> that support a wide variety of compilation toolchains. Cygwin m
On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 04:07:50PM -0700, Brian Dessent wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>Actually, we have had people who have complained because make became
>>confused by certain uses of a ':' in the old version of make. I see
>>now that this is because of the attempt to interpret a valid make
Christopher Faylor wrote:
> Actually, we have had people who have complained because make became
> confused by certain uses of a ':' in the old version of make. I see now
> that this is because of the attempt to interpret a valid make rule as
> a MS-DOS path.
>
> So, I'm less inclined to want to
On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 03:40:18PM -0700, Brian Dessent wrote:
>William Sheehan wrote:
>>I can imagine that the immediate response to this complaint will be
>>"fix your Makefiles to work with Cygwin if it's such an important
>>component." As others have mentioned, this is no simple task in very
>>l
On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 03:31:53PM -0700, William Sheehan wrote:
>>There is no advantage using cygwin if you want to use a Makefile which
>>contains MS-DOS paths. Using MinGW makes perfect sense in that case.
>
>I strongly disagree with this statement. A primary benefit of using
>Cygwin is that s
William Sheehan wrote:
> I can imagine that the immediate response to this complaint will be "fix
> your Makefiles to work with Cygwin if it's such an important component." As
> others have mentioned, this is no simple task in very large Makefile systems
> that support a wide variety of compilati
> There is no advantage using cygwin if you want to use a Makefile which
contains
> MS-DOS paths. Using MinGW makes perfect sense in that case.
I strongly disagree with this statement. A primary benefit of using Cygwin
is that so many Linux-like tools are available from one central installer.
If
On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 05:09:16PM -0400, Paul D. Smith wrote:
>In fact, I'm wondering if there is an advantage to building GNU make
>using the Cygwin environment, vs. using a native MingW (for example)
>build of GNU make? I'm afraid I'm woefully ignorant about the details.
There is no advantage
%% I wrote:
pds> I believe that this support is limited to handling drive letters without
pds> choking on the ":", actually: IIRC the native support still requires
pds> forward slashes (/) rather than backslashes (\). I could be wrong
pds> though. I'm not sure how Cygwin's pathname manag
%% Brian Dessent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
bd> To summarize, the Cygwin version of make prior to 3.81 contained
bd> local patches to support both posix and Windows paths. The Cygwin
bd> maintainer got tired of continuously maintaining these local
bd> patches and so when packaging 3.81 t
29 matches
Mail list logo
