Re: make 3.81-1 problems with DOS-paths

Re: make 3.81-1 problems with DOS-paths

[Eric Blake]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

According to Knut Schwichtenberg on 9/27/2006 11:31 AM:
> 
> How is it possible that ./configure does not recognize the Cygwin
> environment properly for a Windows-PC? Is the missing define only a
> derived problem that is based on an error in the toolchain before?

All right!  I was totally expecting this week's holy war to be on my
decision to make bash run faster on binary mounts at the expense of those
poor \r\n script users, but this guy set out to prove me wrong.  Perhaps
he didn't get the memo that make is last week's gripe?

[Goes on reading \my inbox]
Oh, well, maybe I did spark a holy war after all.  The hippo should be so
proud.

Next week: how about vi and/or emacs vs. notepad?

- --
Life is short - so eat dessert first!

Eric Blake             ebb9@byu.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (Cygwin)
Comment: Public key at home.comcast.net/~ericblake/eblake.gpg
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFGyVh84KuGfSFAYARAo77AKCQyFUZ7inRub76y/TiwMTX778LHACglOyh
kowbu8FwCnH3qClxsyP2gIc=
=Qjvx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: make 3.81-1 problems with DOS-paths

[Charli Li]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Eric Blake just had to cough out the following stream of bytes from
the specified email client, on 9/27/2006 9:29 PM:
> According to Knut Schwichtenberg on 9/27/2006 11:31 AM:
>> How is it possible that ./configure does not recognize the Cygwin
>> environment properly for a Windows-PC? Is the missing define only a
>> derived problem that is based on an error in the toolchain before?
> 
> All right!  I was totally expecting this week's holy war to be on my
> decision to make bash run faster on binary mounts at the expense of those
> poor \r\n script users, but this guy set out to prove me wrong.  Perhaps
> he didn't get the memo that make is last week's gripe?
> 

Heh, heh, maybe the patch proposed *should* be considered official.

> [Goes on reading \my inbox]
> Oh, well, maybe I did spark a holy war after all.  The hippo should be so
> proud.
> 
> Next week: how about vi and/or emacs vs. notepad?
> 

Throw xemacs and Notepad++ in there, would you?  And yes, the hippo
should be proud of this *possibly upcoming* debate of text editors!?

- --
Charli
- ---
Leave?  Yeah, get out! *smack*
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFGyeZKGyf4JaPChgRAtlLAJ0S32FVGTRWH23oaCscehlzSzjwbACfTmy4
qNvvqk7pgbf6VfpfbQxOYEs=
=HYok
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: make 3.81-1 problems with DOS-paths

[Christopher Faylor]

On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 09:38:33PM -0400, Charli Li wrote:
>Eric Blake just had to cough out the following stream of bytes from
>the specified email client, on 9/27/2006 9:29 PM:
>>According to Knut Schwichtenberg on 9/27/2006 11:31 AM:
>>>How is it possible that ./configure does not recognize the Cygwin
>>>environment properly for a Windows-PC?  Is the missing define only a
>>>derived problem that is based on an error in the toolchain before?
>>
>>All right! I was totally expecting this week's holy war to be on my
>>decision to make bash run faster on binary mounts at the expense of
>>those poor \r\n script users, but this guy set out to prove me wrong.
>>Perhaps he didn't get the memo that make is last week's gripe?
>
>Heh, heh, maybe the patch proposed *should* be considered official.

http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/make-w32/2006-09/msg00034.html

cgf