This is the mail archive of the
cygwin
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81
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 discussion is so
> > frustrating.
> >
> > Does someone *really* have to tell you who was "maintaining the old
> > patch"? If you really need to be told this then you really don't have
> > the right to an opinion on this subject at all since you clearly haven't
> > been paying any attention.
>
> I think you are all to knowledgable about cygwin and should step back
> and think about people that use Cygwin as a black box and understand
> absolutly nothing about it or it's development process. The frustration
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 comes up
because people are using Cygwin in a non-standard way. I'm wondering
why nobody complains that Linux doesn't understand drive letters.
> you are expressing is understandable to me. However, with a little
> managerial effort on your part, you could use your knowledge (if you so
> choose) to help the rest of us organize a productive way to develop a
> patch to the upstream make. I thought Corinna spoke very well on this
> matter, and is why I even bothered responding to this list.
Maybe you got me wrong. I have a very strange feeling about getting
told my point of view would be right, while in the same sentence you're
kicking cgf's ass. 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.
Whatever the outcome of this make problem, I fully agree to what Chris
said in his previous mail. This discussion is enormously frustrating.
There are solutions available, but everybody just keeps repeating how
bad everything got. And on top of that we get told how evil our point
of view about how to use Cygwin is. Maybe you should reevaluate what
Cygwin is designed for instead of trying to strangle Cygwin in some
other direction.
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat
--
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/