This is the mail archive of the cygwin-talk mailing list for the cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81


Corinna Vinschen wrote:
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 knowledgeable about cygwin and should step back
and think about people that use Cygwin as a black box and understand
absolutely 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.

Well, the obvious answer is because Linux doesn't *have* 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.

Just to jump over to the other side here for a second... I assume you don't intend to ever make it /impossible/ to run DOS tools on Cygwin? That IMO *would* be unacceptable and unrealistic. But, of course, that's what interface tools - like cygpath - are for. IOW, the ability to offer a "pure POSIX" environment is good, as long as it does not preclude any communication whatsoever (no matter how clunky) with Windows.


I think I've made my position on the 'make' decision known; I have absolutely no problems with it, and I support it. Just as long as I can still pipe between DOS and Cygwin applications(*), share file systems, and have something like 'cygpath', Cygwin can (and should) be as POSIX-like as it wants. :-)

(* Interix is even worse, here! For pipes to work, you have to call all DOS programs from an Interix wrapper program! ...but even that is acceptable because it still *can* be done.)

--
Matthew
vIMprove your life! Now on version 7!


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]