Hi, On Wednesday 08 July 2009, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote: > On 07/07/2009 12:12, Alexander Neundorf wrote: > > I would suggest you try to get them first into cmake, and from there will > > will automatically flow into cygwin cmake. > > I'm not the Cygwin cmake package maintainer, so I would prefer to work > with/through him rather than springing such a change on him via upstream > without notice.
...but instead release a patched cmake without notifying upstream, who do QA ? I would think that package maintainers expect that new versions of their maintained package may have changes compared to previous vrsions. > > That doesn't sound like a good idea, since it still is WIN32, and all > > documentation and postings on the mailing list will say that it has > > WIN32. So, please don't remove that. > > I'm talking about the CMake WIN32 define, not the CPP #define. Yes, I know. > Either way, neither should be on for Cygwin (as is the default for gcc), > since Cygwin is a *NIX/X11 platform which has almost nothing in common with > WIN32. At least it has a complete Windows environment available on the outside. E.g. it doesn't have RPATH or something comparable. I think (not sure) it doesn't really support symlinks. Executables are called ".exe". There's more. > Having built a number of packages with CMake, both in and out of > KDE, I can tell you that grouping CYGWIN and WIN32 together is almost > always wrong. > > So yes, I do intend to pursue removing the WIN32 CMake define for Cygwin. I expect that you will not have support for that from the cmake developers. Who is the cygwin cmake maintainer ? Isn't that Bill Hoffman ? http://www.mail-archive.com/cygwin-announce%40cygwin.com/msg02872.html Yes, looks like it. Did he agree with that change ? So, there is no difference between the cmake cygwin maintainer and upstream :-) Alex _______________________________________________ Kde-buildsystem mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-buildsystem
