Christopher Faylor wrote on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 6:26 PM:
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 10:12:51AM -0600, Michael Hirsch wrote:
Yes. See
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-announce/2006-07/msg8.html.
If you are using a POSIX-like OS (i.e. Cygwin), you should be
using POSIX paths. That's not an
Michael Hirsch wrote:
On 7/21/06, mwoehlke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael Hirsch wrote:
Here is a sample Makefile that breaks with Gnu Make 3.81-1 under
Cygwin, but works fine with Gnu Make 3.80-1. We have been writing
these types of Makefiles for years, using both Windows and Cygwin
On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 02:00:41PM -0500, mwoehlke wrote:
Michael Hirsch wrote:
I see. Unfortunately, I am trying to use cygwin to make my life
easier on Windows, but I am still constrained to use windows programs.
Many of them cannot use the cygwin paths, but require a path like
c:/my/path.exe.
On 7/21/06, mwoehlke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael Hirsch wrote:
Here is a sample Makefile that breaks with Gnu Make 3.81-1 under
Cygwin, but works fine with Gnu Make 3.80-1. We have been writing
these types of Makefiles for years, using both Windows and Cygwin
tools, and this is the
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 10:12:51AM -0600, Michael Hirsch wrote:
Yes. See http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-announce/2006-07/msg8.html.
If you are using a POSIX-like OS (i.e. Cygwin), you should be using
POSIX paths. That's not an inconvenience, that's called writing a bad
makefile. If you aren't
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 12:26:09PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
Maybe someone here would be willing to post a sed transformation which
would change c:\some\dos\path to /cygdrive/c/some/dos/path.
Here are two simple, imperfect proof-of-concept perl scripts.
The first one just translates
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Michael Hirsch wrote:
On 7/21/06, mwoehlke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#PCYMTNQREAIYR. Thanks.
Michael Hirsch wrote:
[snip]
Is it broken only on Windows?
That sounds like a silly question... 'are Windows paths only broken on
Windows?'
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 10:12:51AM -0600, Michael Hirsch wrote:
Yes. See http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-announce/2006-07/msg8.html.
If you are using a POSIX-like OS (i.e. Cygwin), you should be using
POSIX paths. That's not an inconvenience,
I have been following this discussion closely, as we were also hit by this
change. However, in all the emails and the ChangeLog, I still can't find an
official reason why the change was made in the first place. Was it for
technical reasons? And if so, would the Cygwin team accept a patch that
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, William Sheehan wrote:
I have been following this discussion closely, as we were also hit by
this change. However, in all the emails and the ChangeLog, I still
can't find an official reason why the change was made in the first
place. Was it for technical reasons? And
Christopher Faylor wrote:
I participate in cygwin because I like providing a linux-like interface
on Windows.
Booof! This is the best reason why cygwin existed and why it still
exists. We hope this continues.
Best Regards,
Carlo
--
Carlo Florendo
Astra Philippines Inc.
www.astra.ph
Joachim Achtzehnter wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
I guess that means there is nothing more to discuss.
Agreed, except for the following.
On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 12:53:19PM -0700, Joachim Achtzehnter wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
Well, you *could* expect a fix if you provided
Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote on Sunday, July 23, 2006 1:08 AM:
On 07/21/2006, Joachim Achtzehnter wrote:
I just had to deal with such a messy system and the new Cygwin make
doesn't work. Even though this collection of makefiles was initially
written on a POSIX system it still got into trouble
Hi all,
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Fri, Jul 21, 2006 at 06:03:43PM -0700, Joachim Achtzehnter wrote:
There was also some difference in newline handling which required another
set of sed changes, arghh!
Well with detailed bug reports like this and the previous make provides an
error on one
On 7/24/06, Joachim Achtzehnter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This sarcastic response to one sentence out of a much longer post quoted in
isolation suggests that a clarification is in order.
here here! i'd like to add that i'm getting fed up of reading sarcastic
comments from cgf since i rejoined
Mark Fisher wrote:
On 7/24/06, Joachim Achtzehnter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This sarcastic response to one sentence out of a much longer post
quoted in
isolation suggests that a clarification is in order.
here here! i'd like to add that i'm getting fed up of reading sarcastic
comments from
Joachim Achtzehnter wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Fri, Jul 21, 2006 at 06:03:43PM -0700, Joachim Achtzehnter wrote:
My second post was specifically in response to the claim by mwoehlke
suggesting that the changes were not an inconvenience. In this post
all the issues I mentioned were
On 22 July 2006 02:04, Joachim Achtzehnter wrote:
mwoehlke wrote:
Michael Hirsch wrote:
Here is a sample Makefile that breaks with Gnu Make 3.81-1 under
Cygwin, but works fine with Gnu Make 3.80-1.
[ ... snip ... ]
Was this a deliberate break with backwards compatibility?
On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 01:01:55PM -0500, mwoehlke wrote:
Joachim Achtzehnter wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Fri, Jul 21, 2006 at 06:03:43PM -0700, Joachim Achtzehnter wrote:
My second post was specifically in response to the claim by mwoehlke
suggesting that the changes were not an
On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 10:12:17AM -0700, Joachim Achtzehnter wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Fri, Jul 21, 2006 at 06:03:43PM -0700, Joachim Achtzehnter wrote:
There was also some difference in newline handling which required
another set of sed changes, arghh!
Well with detailed bug reports
On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 02:42:40PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 10:12:17AM -0700, Joachim Achtzehnter wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Fri, Jul 21, 2006 at 06:03:43PM -0700, Joachim Achtzehnter wrote:
There was also some difference in newline handling which required
Dave Korn wrote:
Which begs the question: given that you were working on such a large and
complex makefile system, and given that it had non-POSIX paths in a makefile,
and given that it wasn't broke and didn't need fixing ...
... why on EARTH did you deliberately go and upgrade to a new
Christopher Faylor wrote:
Well, you *could* expect a fix if you provided enough details.
Understood. The question is, can there still be value in reporting that a
program crashes, even with minimal but potentially still useful
information? I'm just asking and am genuinely interested in
On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 12:53:19PM -0700, Joachim Achtzehnter wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
Well, you *could* expect a fix if you provided enough details.
Understood. The question is, can there still be value in reporting
that a program crashes, even with minimal but potentially still useful
I think problem reports in itself are already useful so people can
search the mailing lists to see whether the type of problem they run
into is already reported. With some luck they can solve or workaround it
with the suggestions, but even if no solution or explanation is
available, it may save
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 01:01:55PM -0500, mwoehlke wrote:
Joachim Achtzehnter wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Fri, Jul 21, 2006 at 06:03:43PM -0700, Joachim Achtzehnter wrote:
My second post was specifically in response to the claim by
Christopher Faylor wrote:
I guess that means there is nothing more to discuss.
Agreed, except for the following.
On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 12:53:19PM -0700, Joachim Achtzehnter wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
Well, you *could* expect a fix if you provided enough details.
Understood. The
On Fri, Jul 21, 2006 at 05:29:16PM -0600, Michael Hirsch wrote:
Here is a sample Makefile that breaks with Gnu Make 3.81-1 under
Cygwin, but works fine with Gnu Make 3.80-1. We have been writing
these types of Makefiles for years, using both Windows and Cygwin
tools, and this is the first time
On Fri, Jul 21, 2006 at 06:03:43PM -0700, Joachim Achtzehnter wrote:
There was also some difference in newline handling which required another
set of sed changes, arghh!
Well with detailed bug reports like this and the previous make provides an
error on one of my complex makefiles we're surely
On 07/21/2006, Joachim Achtzehnter wrote:
I just had to deal with such a messy system and the new Cygwin make doesn't
work. Even though this collection of makefiles was initially written on a
POSIX system it still got into trouble with DOS paths because some of the
tools it calls to generate
Michael Hirsch wrote:
Here is a sample Makefile that breaks with Gnu Make 3.81-1 under
Cygwin, but works fine with Gnu Make 3.80-1. We have been writing
these types of Makefiles for years, using both Windows and Cygwin
tools, and this is the first time Make has ever broken like this.
I see in
mwoehlke wrote:
Michael Hirsch wrote:
Here is a sample Makefile that breaks with Gnu Make 3.81-1 under
Cygwin, but works fine with Gnu Make 3.80-1.
...
Was this a deliberate break with backwards compatibility? It means
that every single reference to a windows path needs to be wrapped in
32 matches
Mail list logo
