"shouted down", "shot down", apologies
Wed Jun 27 17:50:00 GMT 2001
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 08:32:52PM -0400, Brian Keener wrote:
>Just some step by step instructions - sometimes it's better to be over
>detailed than to leave information out. I can always skip what I
>already know - but if it's not there I have to ask someone.
Yes. That's why I'm probably not the best person to be writing the
>>Very occasionally, you may have to wipe out your build directory and
>>reconfigure (I've never had to do this but some people seem to think it
>I was having to do it a lot but I forgot that Earnie helped me fgind
>this one - I was doing a configure everytime I updated from cvs and
>then would do a make (which did sometime foul up big time) and then I
>was doing a configure and a make clean and it would leave stuff hanging
>around and Earnie pointed out I should make clean before I did the
>configure if I was going to do a configure. That seemed to help a lot
>of my problems - sorry.
I remember that now. We were all confused. You weren't doing anything
wrong. What you were doing should have worked.
One thing that happens is that occasionally the "powers that be" decide
to make a change in the top-level configure and make process and this
screws up cygwin. I usually live only in the winsup directory and do
all of my builds there. It is safer.
The sad fact is that the people developing gcc, gdb, and binutils who
make occasional changes to the very top level configure of the tree
which includes gcc, gdb, binutils, ld, and winsup do not always take
"winsup" into account. And, stuff can be broken for a while until
someone figures out what is wrong.
So the morale to the story is don't build from the top-level.
...despite what some web-based instructions may say.
This *is* confusing and I was wrong to act like it was simple.
>>I guess it is possible that Win95 is the source of your problem. I do
>>recall that you had strange problems building. I hate to say this but
>>you seemed to be the only one who had these problems.
>That is usually the case with me - if someone will have all the
>problems it will be me.
Sounds like you should be in QE.
>> And, then once you've figured all of this out, you can offer these
>> pearls of wisdom to the mailing list as a modification to the FAQ or the
>> user documentation or the web page.
>Never miss a chance do you :-)
Oh yeah, repetition is the key.
>I know and I thank you and all the others - but admit it - it is
>sometimes with mumbling under your breath because to you "oldies" it is
>so second nature and you might wait for us to ask a second time before
>answering. But that goes along as well with the discussion we had here
>a while back about you making your presence less known (which by the
>way - does not appear to be in your nature ;-))
I wasn't very present last week, was I? Of course, I was out of town,
but still... :-)
I have been trying not to answer questions when I think that others will step
in. When it comes to philosophy questions, though, then I feel that I have
to. Or, maybe I don't. Hmm.
>Sometimes you have to force us to look elsewhere for the answers and/or
>to dig deeper by not responding and for the most part we all understand
>that as well.
Ok. Point taken. If I go silent for a while I hope that people understand
that I'm not being rude. :-)
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
More information about the Cygwin