From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25122 invoked by alias); 16 Aug 2006 18:45:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 25110 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Aug 2006 18:45:59 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from pool-71-248-179-229.bstnma.fios.verizon.net (HELO cgf.cx) (71.248.179.229) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 16 Aug 2006 18:45:58 +0000 Received: by cgf.cx (Postfix, from userid 201) id 83DE813C042; Wed, 16 Aug 2006 14:45:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 18:45:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: The Cygwin-Talk Maiming List Subject: Re: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81 Message-ID: <20060816184556.GA5727@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin-talk@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: The Cygwin-Talk Maiming List References: <6.2.3.4.2.20060815151104.0b40e260@pop.nycap.rr.com> <01b901c6c116$21259430$a501a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> <6.2.3.4.2.20060816091525.0ab90af0@pop.nycap.rr.com> <20060816144110.GX20467@calimero.vinschen.de> <20060816174406.GA7538@brasko.net> <20060816180659.GA5064@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-talk-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com Reply-To: The Cygwin-Talk Maiming List X-SW-Source: 2006-q3/txt/msg00195.txt.bz2 On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 01:20:55PM -0500, mwoehlke wrote: >Christopher Faylor wrote: >>On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 01:44:06PM -0400, 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 someone needs to read http://isbn.nu/0671723650 >...I'm sure something about "paying attention" is mentioned. :-D > >(Sorry, I just COULDN'T resist :-D.) Hey, for a second, I thought this was directed towards me (since I am just counting the seconds until that happens) but I actually think this was directed to my good friend Bob, right? Or am *I* missing something obvious? I would almost prefer it if I was. The alternative is just too mind-bogglingly >deleted<. cgf