On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 04:40:03PM -0400, William A. Hoffman wrote:
>My suggestion was, to send notice of the coming change before the
>change was made, not after. That is all. IMO, the make issue is over.
>I was just trying to make a suggestion to avoid flame wars like this in
>the future. I do
At 04:24 PM 8/21/2006, Chris Taylor wrote:
>Actually, Dave does have the nub of it. His assertions are accurate in your
>case.
>
>There have been many messages to this list, as well as the release note that
>specifically mentioned that MSDOS paths were no longer supported.
>Given that these _wer
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006, Chris Taylor wrote:
> Also, Dave commented earlier on your email saying an email should have
> been sent to the list saying that these changes were going to happen.
> It was. It's called the 'release notes'. They go to cygwin-announce, if
> I recall correctly.. Maybe you shoul
William A. Hoffman wrote:
At 02:57 PM 8/21/2006, Dave Korn wrote:
On 21 August 2006 18:58, William A. Hoffman wrote:
of, make is changing beware, it may have been noticed. Let's face make
is not a project you expect to see a bunch of change happening on,
especially a change that breaks exist
At 02:57 PM 8/21/2006, Dave Korn wrote:
>On 21 August 2006 18:58, William A. Hoffman wrote:
>
>> of, make is changing beware, it may have been noticed. Let's face make
>> is not a project you expect to see a bunch of change happening on,
>> especially a change that breaks existing makefiles.
>
>
On 21 August 2006 18:58, William A. Hoffman wrote:
> of, make is changing beware, it may have been noticed. Let's face make
> is not a project you expect to see a bunch of change happening on,
> especially a change that breaks existing makefiles.
Ah. We have the nub of it.
Make is not a pr
At 01:35 PM 8/21/2006, Dave Korn wrote:
>On 21 August 2006 18:28, William A. Hoffman wrote:
>
>
>> However, one thing that might have averted this thread would have been an
>> email
>> to the cygwin list, (prior to the release announcement) that described the
>> change you were going to make.
>
>
On 21 August 2006 18:28, William A. Hoffman wrote:
> However, one thing that might have averted this thread would have been an
> email
> to the cygwin list, (prior to the release announcement) that described the
> change you were going to make.
The hypothesis that someone who doesn't bother w
At 11:12 AM 8/21/2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>Your messages and those from the other couple of vocal people here have
>done nothing to convince me that this decision was wrong for me. It has
>done a lot to reinforce my belief that there are vocal people on this
>mailing list who, even when tal
At 12:56 PM 8/21/2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 12:25:58PM -0400, William A. Hoffman wrote:
>>There is now an upstream patch for make with Chris's blessing.
>
>This does not exactly have my "blessing". I have just tried to be as
>diligent as possible in making sure that
On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 12:25:58PM -0400, William A. Hoffman wrote:
>There is now an upstream patch for make with Chris's blessing.
This does not exactly have my "blessing". I have just tried to be as
diligent as possible in making sure that the change makes sense and that
the patch is as small
There is now an upstream patch for make with Chris's blessing.
It can be found here:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.make.windows/2136
If anyone wants to try it, and make sure it creates a make
that does what you expect, now is the time. To use the
patch you will have to run autoconf a
On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 11:02:06PM -0700, Joachim Achtzehnter wrote:
>Dave Korn wrote:
>>>Because I do not agree with your suggestion.
>>
>>You don't agree that this is the cygwin list, not the mingw list?
>
>Some people are trying to solve an issue with cygwin's build of make by
>discussing possib
Dave Korn wrote:
> Because I do not agree with your suggestion.
You don't agree that this is the cygwin list, not the mingw list?
Some people are trying to solve an issue with cygwin's build of make by
discussing possible solutions. Those who have nothing to contribute to
this effort would
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 02:26:34PM -0500, mwoehlke wrote:
>Olivier Langlois wrote:
>>>Just for the records: My design goals for Cygwin
>>>are that it works fine as a POSIX environment, not that it works fine
>>>to run DOS tools. That's a nice side-effect at best.
>>
>>It seems to me that Cygwin de
Olivier Langlois wrote:
Just for the records: My design goals for Cygwin
are that it works fine as a POSIX environment, not that it works fine
to run DOS tools. That's a nice side-effect at best.
It seems to me that Cygwin design goals have changed recently otherwise
if offering a POSIX enviro
Hi Corinna,
>
> This has nothing to do with Cygwin's development process. Cygwin is a
> POSIX environment after all. It's one of if's design targets to get
rid
> of the DOS paths. People using Cygwin with DOS paths are using Cygwin
> for something it was not designed for. This whole complaint
> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 09:43:30 -0400
> From: "William A. Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: cygwin@cygwin.com
>
> Here is a run with the MinGW make, from a cygwin shell:
>
> $ ./make
> [ 25%] Built target testc2
> [ 50%] Built target testc1
> Linking
> C
> executable
> conly.exe
> cl : Command
> From: "Dave Korn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 15:51:01 +0100
>
> > The thought of adding a cygwin-specific function to make and then making
> > sure that it exists as a noop in any other version of make seems a little
> > pushy to me.
>
> Well, it could always just not exist,
> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 10:12:30 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Igor Peshansky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
> cc: Eli Zaretskii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Actually, sorry, I've misread the above. Doesn't GNU make already have a
> plethora of functions not present in other makes?
I again
--
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/
> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 09:59:30 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Igor Peshansky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> cc: cygwin@cygwin.com
>
> > FWIW, I don't think such a function is a good idea, and if it is
> > proposed on the Make mailing list, I will probably object to it.
> >
> > The reason is that adding such a func
At 11:09 AM 8/17/2006, Dave Korn wrote:
>On 17 August 2006 16:01, William A. Hoffman wrote:
>
>> At 10:49 AM 8/17/2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>> I've already mentioned once that this was the wrong mailing list for this.
>>> Why do you seem to need everything repeated at you?
>>>
>>> If you, o
On 17 August 2006 16:01, William A. Hoffman wrote:
> At 10:49 AM 8/17/2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> I've already mentioned once that this was the wrong mailing list for this.
>> Why do you seem to need everything repeated at you?
>>
>> If you, or anyone, is having problems with MinGW's make
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 11:00:48AM -0400, William A. Hoffman wrote:
>At 10:49 AM 8/17/2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>I've already mentioned once that this was the wrong mailing list for
>>this. Why do you seem to need everything repeated at you?
>>
>>If you, or anyone, is having problems with M
At 10:49 AM 8/17/2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>I've already mentioned once that this was the wrong mailing list for this.
>Why do you seem to need everything repeated at you?
>
>If you, or anyone, is having problems with MinGW's make it would behoove
>you to discuss the problems in a mailing lis
On 17 August 2006 15:47, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 03:16:31PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>> On 17 August 2006 15:13, Igor Peshansky wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Igor Peshansky wrote:
>>>
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Aug 2006,
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 09:43:30AM -0400, William A. Hoffman wrote:
>At 04:31 AM 8/17/2006, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>>> Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 09:34:36 -0400
>>> From: "William A. Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>
>>> Actually no, MinGW make is not working for what used to work with cygwin
>>> make.
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 03:16:31PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>On 17 August 2006 15:13, Igor Peshansky wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Igor Peshansky wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>>>
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, Igor Peshansky wrote:
>
> Alternatively, you can try
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 06:48:18AM -0400, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:17:52 +0100
>>
>> On 17 August 2006 10:47, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>>
>> >> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:35:51 +0200
>> >> From: Corinna Vinschen
>> >> Cc: Eli Zaretskii
>>
>> Eli, we have a tradition of snip
On Aug 17 15:27, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 17 August 2006 15:25, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
> > On Aug 17 09:59, Igor Peshansky wrote:
> >> Actually, as Gareth mentioned, *Cygwin* allows colons in file names on
> >> managed mounts. So, at the very least there'd be confusion of whether
> >> c:\\TEMP is
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug 17 09:59, Igor Peshansky wrote:
> > Actually, as Gareth mentioned, *Cygwin* allows colons in file names on
> > managed mounts. So, at the very least there'd be confusion of whether
> > c:\\TEMP is a directory TEMP in the root of the C: drive,
On 17 August 2006 15:25, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug 17 09:59, Igor Peshansky wrote:
>> Actually, as Gareth mentioned, *Cygwin* allows colons in file names on
>> managed mounts. So, at the very least there'd be confusion of whether
>> c:\\TEMP is a directory TEMP in the root of the C: drive,
On Aug 17 09:59, Igor Peshansky wrote:
> Actually, as Gareth mentioned, *Cygwin* allows colons in file names on
> managed mounts. So, at the very least there'd be confusion of whether
> c:\\TEMP is a directory TEMP in the root of the C: drive, or a file named
> 'c:\\TEMP' in the current directory
On 17 August 2006 15:13, Igor Peshansky wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Igor Peshansky wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>>
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, Igor Peshansky wrote:
Alternatively, you can try to implement a $(cygpath ...) function in
make and submit *that
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Igor Peshansky wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>
> > > On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, Igor Peshansky wrote:
> > >
> > > Alternatively, you can try to implement a $(cygpath ...) function in
> > > make and submit *that* to the upstream maintainers.
> >
> > FWIW, I don't
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, Igor Peshansky wrote:
> >
> > Alternatively, you can try to implement a $(cygpath ...) function in
> > make and submit *that* to the upstream maintainers.
>
> FWIW, I don't think such a function is a good idea, and if it is
> propo
At 04:31 AM 8/17/2006, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 09:34:36 -0400
>> From: "William A. Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> Actually no, MinGW make is not working for what used to work with cygwin
>> make. It has a nasty habit of changing cl's command line arguments
>> like /GZ
> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 14:09:23 +0200
>
> On Aug 17 05:46, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > > > Windows doesn't allow colons anywhere else in file names anyway.
> > >
> > > That's not quite right. Colons are also used in file names when the
> > > file name denotes an alternative named stream on NTFS f
On Aug 17 05:46, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > > Windows doesn't allow colons anywhere else in file names anyway.
> >
> > That's not quite right. Colons are also used in file names when the
> > file name denotes an alternative named stream on NTFS file systems.
>
> Right, I forgot about this obscure
> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:17:52 +0100
>
> On 17 August 2006 10:47, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>
> >> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:35:51 +0200
> >> From: Corinna Vinschen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Eli, we have a tradition of snipping email addys on this list:
>
On 17 August 2006 10:47, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:35:51 +0200
>> From: Corinna Vinschen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Eli, we have a tradition of snipping email addys on this list:
http://cygwin.com/acronyms#PCYMTNQREAIYR if you could plea
> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:35:51 +0200
> From: Corinna Vinschen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Windows doesn't allow colons anywhere else in file names anyway.
>
> That's not quite right. Colons are also used in file names when the
> file name denotes an alter
On Aug 17 05:05, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 15:52:59 -0400 (EDT)
> > From: Igor Peshansky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > cc: cygwin@cygwin.com
> >
> > Alternatively, you can try to implement a $(cygpath ...) function in make
> > and submit *that* to the upstream maintainers.
>
> FWI
Eli Zaretskii wrote:
code, perhaps with some Cygwin-specific changes). Contrary to what
some people said in this thread, I don't see any problems that could
hamper the Cygwin build of Make if it supported drive letters, since
Windows doesn't allow colons anywhere else in file names anyway. Of
c
> Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 15:52:59 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Igor Peshansky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> cc: cygwin@cygwin.com
>
> Alternatively, you can try to implement a $(cygpath ...) function in make
> and submit *that* to the upstream maintainers.
FWIW, I don't think such a function is a good idea, and i
> Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 09:34:36 -0400
> From: "William A. Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Actually no, MinGW make is not working for what used to work with cygwin
> make. It has a nasty habit of changing cl's command line arguments
> like /GZ into c:/msys/1.0/GZ.
I think this is the MSYS Mak
On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 09:41:23PM -0400, William A. Hoffman wrote:
>The original make-3.81 does not compile with HAVE_DOS_PATHS on cygwin,
>and a patch on the make-w32 list crashed, I found the cause of the crash
>and with my patch all tests for make check pass. Also, windows paths
>work in makef
At 04:51 PM 8/16/2006, John W. Eaton wrote:
>Have you tried this (uh, what file are you patching anyway)? Does it
>work? Does it cause problems for valid Makefiles that assume POSIX
>filenames?
>
>Suggesting changes to GNU Make on this list is not going to cause
>things to happen. If you want t
Igor Peshansky wrote:
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, mwoehlke wrote:
Igor Peshansky wrote:
Alternatively, you can try to implement a $(cygpath ...) function in make
and submit *that* to the upstream maintainers. That way, the Cygwin make
will not have to invoke a separate process to convert the paths t
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, mwoehlke wrote:
> Igor Peshansky wrote:
> > Alternatively, you can try to implement a $(cygpath ...) function in make
> > and submit *that* to the upstream maintainers. That way, the Cygwin make
> > will not have to invoke a separate process to convert the paths that it
> > (
On 16-Aug-2006, William A. Hoffman wrote:
| Without your support, I don't think the patch would get far.
| I am thinking the patch would be something like:
|
| #ifdef CYGWIN
| #define HAVE_DOS_PATHS
| #endif
Have you tried this (uh, what file are you patching anyway)? Does it
work? Does it ca
Igor Peshansky wrote:
Alternatively, you can try to implement a $(cygpath ...) function in make
and submit *that* to the upstream maintainers. That way, the Cygwin make
will not have to invoke a separate process to convert the paths that it
(as a program linked to cygwin1.dll) already knows how
At 03:47 PM 8/16/2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>The suggestion was that a patch be submitted upstream. I agree with the
>suggestion and have amplified on it a little in another message.
>
>This suggestion does not require further input from me. If I was interested
>in being involved in coming u
On Aug 16 14:17, Bob Rossi wrote:
> > >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?
> >
> > And ^^^this^^^ is a perfect example of why this dis
On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 03:52:59PM -0400, Igor Peshansky wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, William A. Hoffman wrote:
>>At 02:20 PM 8/16/2006, Igor Peshansky wrote:
>>>On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>>Not only that, but the upstream maintainer actually suggested a couple
>>>of avenues of i
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, William A. Hoffman wrote:
> At 02:20 PM 8/16/2006, Igor Peshansky wrote:
> >On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >
> >Not only that, but the upstream maintainer actually suggested a couple of
> >avenues of investigation to make the patch smaller by using functionalit
On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 03:08:54PM -0400, William A. Hoffman wrote:
>At 02:20 PM 8/16/2006, Igor Peshansky wrote:
>>On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>
>>Not only that, but the upstream maintainer actually suggested a couple of
>>avenues of investigation to make the patch smaller by usi
At 02:20 PM 8/16/2006, Igor Peshansky wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
>Not only that, but the upstream maintainer actually suggested a couple of
>avenues of investigation to make the patch smaller by using functionality
>already built into the upstream make. All that remains
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug 16 11:35, William A. Hoffman wrote:
>
> > >I'm honestly confused. Why would it better to have another Cygwin
> > >distro maintainer for a package instead of getting the patches
> > >included upstream? This makes no sense at all. If my head w
On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 01:52:23PM -0400, William A. Hoffman wrote:
> At 11:49 AM 8/16/2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>
> >How do you know it is "a small patch"? Have you actually looked at the
> >code? I find that unlikely.
>
> I had not looked at the source, but figured it most likely was
> >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?
>
> And ^^^this^^^ is a perfect example of why this discussion is so
> frustrating.
>
> Does someo
On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 01:44:06PM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote:
>> > - 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 an
At 11:49 AM 8/16/2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>How do you know it is "a small patch"? Have you actually looked at the
>code? I find that unlikely.
I had not looked at the source, but figured it most likely was not that big
a change. I now have looked at the sources, and minus the makefile
> > - 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'
On Aug 16 11:35, William A. Hoffman wrote:
> I assumed since cgf worked for Red hat, that his offer to take money
> would go to Red Hat. My mistake.
Surprise, cgf doesn't work for Red Hat. Only I do.
> >I'm honestly confused. Why would it better to have another Cygwin
> >distro maintainer for
On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 11:35:50AM -0400, William A. Hoffman wrote:
>At 10:41 AM 8/16/2006, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>On Aug 16 10:14, William A. Hoffman wrote:
>>>cgf wrote:
>>>...or offer money. That carries more weight than complaining. :-)
>>>
>>>However that doesn't work in all cases. This I a
At 10:41 AM 8/16/2006, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Aug 16 10:14, William A. Hoffman wrote:
>> So, there seem to be three options on the table:
>>
>> - pay redhat to put the patch back
>
>The Cygwin net distro is not a Red Hat thingy. It's an entirely
>volunteer driven project. If you want a pack
On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 11:03:47AM -0400, Brian Hassink wrote:
>Respectfully,
>
>Doesn't this just push the maintenance effort elsewhere? Suppose the
>upstream maintainer has "no fun" either?
Read the mailing list archives.
>There are obviously a lot of users in the cygwin community using this
>f
rom: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Corinna Vinschen
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 10:41 AM
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81
> - have the patch made part of the upstream gnu make
That's the best solutiion of all. T
On Aug 16 10:14, William A. Hoffman wrote:
> So, there seem to be three options on the table:
>
> - pay redhat to put the patch back
The Cygwin net distro is not a Red Hat thingy. It's an entirely
volunteer driven project. If you want a package being "fixed" for you,
it's up to the current main
On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 10:14:20AM -0400, William A. Hoffman wrote:
>At 05:27 AM 8/16/2006, Dave Korn wrote:
>>1) Use setup.exe to install the source package to 3.80-1.
>>2) Compile and install it with a --prefix setting that places it earlier in
>>your $PATH (e.g. /usr/local instead of /usr).
>>
William A. Hoffman wrote on Wednesday, August 16, 2006 4:14 PM:
[snip]
> So, there seem to be three options on the table:
>
> - pay redhat to put the patch back
> - maintain your own version of make, that is separate from cygwin.
> - have the patch made part of the upstream gnu make
The forth
On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 09:34:36AM -0400, William A. Hoffman wrote:
>At 05:02 PM 8/15/2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>Just to clarify, the whole point of your interest is to avoid telling
>>people that they should use the MinGW version of make with makefiles
>>that are intended for use MS-DOS-lik
On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 10:27:01AM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>1) Use setup.exe to install the source package to 3.80-1.
>2) Compile and install it with a --prefix setting that places it earlier in
>your $PATH (e.g. /usr/local instead of /usr).
>3) (Optional) Use setup.exe to uninstall the cygwin m
At 05:27 AM 8/16/2006, Dave Korn wrote:
>On 15 August 2006 20:56, William A. Hoffman wrote:
>
>> So, in this case, for
>> those that want the old way of things to work, there is no amount of "work"
>> they can do to make that happen.
>
> Blatantly untrue. Here is a VERY simple recipe you can fo
At 07:04 PM 8/15/2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>No, it would work in this case, but I hesitate to name my price since
>it will surely make me sound even more evil.
I'll bite, how much and how long would it buy me?
-Bill
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Probl
At 05:02 PM 8/15/2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>Just to clarify, the whole point of your interest is to avoid telling
>people that they should use the MinGW version of make with makefiles
>that are intended for use MS-DOS-like applications, right? If that
>is the case, then it really seems like
On 15 August 2006 20:56, William A. Hoffman wrote:
> So, in this case, for
> those that want the old way of things to work, there is no amount of "work"
> they can do to make that happen.
Blatantly untrue. Here is a VERY simple recipe you can follow to make it
work again:
1) Use setup.exe
On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 05:53:17PM -0500, mwoehlke wrote:
>John W. Eaton wrote:
>>On 15-Aug-2006, Joachim Achtzehnter wrote:
>>>Clearly, developers make a huge contribution,
>>>nobody is denying this, but to suggest that *only* developers contribute
>>>and everybody else should therefore just shut
John W. Eaton wrote:
On 15-Aug-2006, Joachim Achtzehnter wrote:
Clearly, developers make a huge contribution,
nobody is denying this, but to suggest that *only* developers contribute
and everybody else should therefore just shut up
I never said everyone else should "just shut up". My point wa
On 15-Aug-2006, Joachim Achtzehnter wrote:
| Free software is about collaboration of a community consisting of
| developers, users, documentation authors, testers, translators, etc. to a
| common good, namely the production of good software that serves the needs
| of that community.
In my view, p
On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 08:55:04AM -0400, William A. Hoffman wrote:
>At 11:17 PM 8/14/2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>Or, the short answer to the question is: Yes. The GNU make mailing list
>>has already been contacted and the GNU make maintainer has already made
>>a suggestion.
>
>I have search
At 02:32 PM 8/15/2006, Dave Korn wrote:
>On 15 August 2006 18:07, Joachim Achtzehnter wrote:
>
>> is the exact opposite of
>> what free software is supposed to be about. A healthy free software project
>> depends on and welcomes input from the community. The attitude exhibited by
>> some on this m
Hi,
This is just to let you know that I totally agree with what Joachim has
written. I too am annoyed and affected by the recent changes made in
cygwin (drop of MS-DOS path support in make and changes in executable
file name evaluation in the cygwin DLL). He has expressed better than I
could have
On 15 August 2006 18:07, Joachim Achtzehnter wrote:
> A peculiar aspect of all-volunteer free software
> projects (some are wholly or partially funded where this can be different)
> is that nobody can force another member of the community to do something
> they don't want to do, so it is all base
John W. Eaton wrote:
I mean, isn't free software all about getting something for nothing,
then complaining about it and expecting others to do yet more gratis
work for you?
Free software is about collaboration of a community consisting of
developers, users, documentation authors, testers, tran
William A. Hoffman wrote:
At 10:40 PM 8/14/2006, Igor Peshansky wrote:
- The other option is to use mingw-make, and only use cygwin make
for cygwin linked programs only.
Incorrect. If you use Cygwin make, it's very easy to invoke Windows
programs by converting their arguments with "cygpath -w"
> From: "John W. Eaton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 18:50:46 -0400
> Cc: cygwin@cygwin.com
>
> This whole problem could be solved if the people who are complaining
> about the Cygwin version of GNU Make directed their efforts toward
> getting a patch accepted in the GNU Make sourc
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006, William A. Hoffman wrote:
> At 10:40 PM 8/14/2006, Igor Peshansky wrote:
>
> >> MS cl can no longer be used with cygwin make as of 3.81.
> >
> >Incorrect. See below.
> >
> >> Perhaps something along the lines of /c/ that would be translated by
> >> gmake itself into c:, so th
At 11:17 PM 8/14/2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 10:40:34PM -0400, Igor Peshansky wrote:
>>On Mon, 14 Aug 2006, William A. Hoffman wrote:
>>>Sounds like it is time to join the gmake mailing list. Has anyone on
>>>this list tried that yet?
>>
>>If you are asking whether any
At 10:40 PM 8/14/2006, Igor Peshansky wrote:
>> MS cl can no longer be used with cygwin make as of 3.81.
>
>Incorrect. See below.
>
>> Perhaps something along the lines of /c/ that would be translated by
>> gmake itself into c:, so that no special parsing would be required for
>> the makefiles.
>
William A. Hoffman wrote on Tuesday, August 15, 2006 4:12 AM:
> OK, so to summarize.
>
> - there is no options or special syntax that will allow the
> make 3.81 to recognize drive letters in such a way that native
> windows tools can use them. /c/ and /cygdrive/c/ will only work
> with applicati
On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 10:40:34PM -0400, Igor Peshansky wrote:
>On Mon, 14 Aug 2006, William A. Hoffman wrote:
>>Sounds like it is time to join the gmake mailing list. Has anyone on
>>this list tried that yet?
>
>If you are asking whether anyone has posted a suggestion to add Win32
>path support
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006, William A. Hoffman wrote:
> OK, so to summarize.
>
> - there is no options or special syntax that will allow the
> make 3.81 to recognize drive letters in such a way that native
> windows tools can use them.
Correct.
> /c/ and /cygdrive/c/ will only work with applications bu
OK, so to summarize.
- there is no options or special syntax that will allow the
make 3.81 to recognize drive letters in such a way that native
windows tools can use them. /c/ and /cygdrive/c/ will only work
with applications built against the cygwin libraries. MS cl can
no longer be used with c
On 15-Aug-2006, Dave Korn wrote:
| On 14 August 2006 23:51, John W. Eaton wrote:
|
| > Or am I missing something?
|
| The increasingly obvious fact that the aforementioned people have no
| intention of actually *doing* anything, and seem to want to do nothing except
| complain and tell others
On 14 August 2006 23:51, John W. Eaton wrote:
> A recap, as I understand it (please correct me if I'm wrong):
[ snip perfectly accurate summary as far as I can see ]
> This whole problem could be solved if the people who are complaining
> about the Cygwin version of GNU Make directed their e
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006, William A. Hoffman wrote:
> At 04:16 PM 8/14/2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
> >I'm not 100% clear on what you're saying but if cmake distributed with
> >Cygwin is producing makefiles with MS-DOS SYNTAX then, actually it
> >should either be fixed to not do that or it should
William A. Hoffman wrote:
At 04:16 PM 8/14/2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
I'm not 100% clear on what you're saying but if cmake distributed with
Cygwin is producing makefiles with MS-DOS SYNTAX then, actually it
should either be fixed to not do that or it should be pulled from the
distribution.
1 - 100 of 115 matches
Mail list logo
