X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Message-ID: <97b0303c0603310611o45e4a6baj321ead3f8bcc19cd@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 21:11:53 +0700
From: "Alexander Herrmann" <ping2weltall AT gmail DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: GNU make 3.81rc2 available and I'm worried
In-Reply-To: <442CFB2A.8090300@mycom-int.fr.invalid>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <20060330200956 DOT GG28682 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> 	 <442CFB2A DOT 8090300 AT mycom-int DOT fr DOT invalid>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id k2VEC2wE022250

On 3/31/06, Shaddy Baddah <sbaddah AT mycom-int DOT fr DOT invalid> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 3/30/2006 10:09 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > That would suggest that you should be producing your own version of
> > make for your own personal needs.
>
> Ok, fair enough. Sorry if I came of demanding (it wasn't my intention).
>
> cgf, as the maintainer of the current Cygwin make release (version
> 3.80-1), could you assist me please?
>
> The problem as I see it is that GNU make was ported in these earlier
> releases, but 1) the source was not modified with atomic patches, 2) the
> patches never made it upstream (not saying there wasn't an attempt. I
> don't know).
>
> Am I right on point 1? If not, is there a patch set that I can look at
> to make the porting easier?
>
> At this point, you might be asking why I don't merge the 3.80 to 3.81
> patch back into the cygwin source. It is because of point 2. I would
> like to "give a stab" at trying to get any porting patches accepted
> upstream. Am I breaking new ground here, or has it been tried and failed
> previously?
What would be life without challenges. If 4.0 dosn't worry you find a
rock and hibernate underneath :)
Seriously - problems there to be solved. No reason to worry some
problems are even fun otherwise people would stick to living on trees
eating leaves.
Alex
http://www.aiengine.org

--
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/