Re: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81

Re: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81

[mwoehlke]

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.)

-- 
Matthew
vIMprove your life! Now on version 7!

Re: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81

[Christopher Faylor]

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

Re: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81

[mwoehlke]

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> 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<.

Yup, at Bob. DEFINITELY at Bob. I almost re-posted (and I don't mean on 
-talk) when I saw his reply to your message. :-)

Now I wonder what that was that you deleted...

-- 
Matthew
vIMprove your life! Now on version 7!

Re: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81

[mwoehlke]

Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug 16 14:17, 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 you are all to knowledgeable about cygwin and should step back
>> and think about people that use Cygwin as a black box and understand
>> absolutely nothing about it or it's development process. The frustration
> 
> This has nothing to do with Cygwin's development process.  Cygwin is a
> POSIX environment after all.  It's one of if's design targets to get rid
> of the DOS paths.  People using Cygwin with DOS paths are using Cygwin
> for something it was not designed for.  This whole complaint comes up
> because people are using Cygwin in a non-standard way.  I'm wondering
> why nobody complains that Linux doesn't understand drive letters.

Well, the obvious answer is because Linux doesn't *have* drive letters. ;-)

>> you are expressing is understandable to me. However, with a little
>> managerial effort on your part, you could use your knowledge (if you so 
>> choose) to help the rest of us organize a productive way to develop a
>> patch to the upstream make. I thought Corinna spoke very well on this
>> matter, and is why I even bothered responding to this list.
> 
> Maybe you got me wrong.  I have a very strange feeling about getting
> told my point of view would be right, while in the same sentence you're
> kicking cgf's ass.  Just for the records: My design goals for Cygwin
> are that it works fine as a POSIX environment, not that it works fine
> to run DOS tools.  That's a nice side-effect at best.

Just to jump over to the other side here for a second... I assume you 
don't intend to ever make it /impossible/ to run DOS tools on Cygwin? 
That IMO *would* be unacceptable and unrealistic. But, of course, that's 
what interface tools - like cygpath - are for. IOW, the ability to offer 
a "pure POSIX" environment is good, as long as it does not preclude any 
communication whatsoever (no matter how clunky) with Windows.

I think I've made my position on the 'make' decision known; I have 
absolutely no problems with it, and I support it. Just as long as I can 
still pipe between DOS and Cygwin applications(*), share file systems, 
and have something like 'cygpath', Cygwin can (and should) be as 
POSIX-like as it wants. :-)

(* Interix is even worse, here! For pipes to work, you have to call all 
DOS programs from an Interix wrapper program! ...but even that is 
acceptable because it still *can* be done.)

-- 
Matthew
vIMprove your life! Now on version 7!

Re: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81

[Christopher Faylor]

On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 03:40:12PM -0500, mwoehlke wrote:
>Just to jump over to the other side here for a second...  I assume you
>don't intend to ever make it /impossible/ to run DOS tools on Cygwin?
>That IMO *would* be unacceptable and unrealistic.  But, of course,
>that's what interface tools - like cygpath - are for.  IOW, the ability
>to offer a "pure POSIX" environment is good, as long as it does not
>preclude any communication whatsoever (no matter how clunky) with
>Windows.

No, we will always have some way of running and communicating with MS-DOS
filenames.

One thing I just added to cygwin recently is a warning which shows up
the first time you use a MS-DOS path, though.  I am expecting that to be
very popular!

>I think I've made my position on the 'make' decision known; I have 
>absolutely no problems with it, and I support it. Just as long as I can 
>still pipe between DOS and Cygwin applications(*), share file systems, 
>and have something like 'cygpath', Cygwin can (and should) be as 
>POSIX-like as it wants. :-)

Pipes between MS-DOS programs and Cygwin programs is actually one of
the things that is a little tricky but it is not slated to go away.

cgf

Re: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81

[mwoehlke]

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 03:40:12PM -0500, mwoehlke wrote:
>> Just to jump over to the other side here for a second...  I assume you
>> don't intend to ever make it /impossible/ to run DOS tools on Cygwin?
>> That IMO *would* be unacceptable and unrealistic.  But, of course,
>> that's what interface tools - like cygpath - are for.  IOW, the ability
>> to offer a "pure POSIX" environment is good, as long as it does not
>> preclude any communication whatsoever (no matter how clunky) with
>> Windows.
> 
> No, we will always have some way of running and communicating with MS-DOS
> filenames.
> 
> One thing I just added to cygwin recently is a warning which shows up
> the first time you use a MS-DOS path, though.  I am expecting that to be
> very popular!

Yup! But hey, *I'll* never see it... :-)

>> I think I've made my position on the 'make' decision known; I have 
>> absolutely no problems with it, and I support it. Just as long as I can 
>> still pipe between DOS and Cygwin applications(*), share file systems, 
>> and have something like 'cygpath', Cygwin can (and should) be as 
>> POSIX-like as it wants. :-)
> 
> Pipes between MS-DOS programs and Cygwin programs is actually one of
> the things that is a little tricky but it is not slated to go away.

Right... I was pretty sure no one was out to *actually* remove anything 
like this, but I'm just paranoid enough to make sure. :-) Thanks.

-- 
Matthew
vIMprove your life! Now on version 7!

Re: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81

[Christopher Faylor]

On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 04:32:05PM -0500, mwoehlke wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>Pipes between MS-DOS programs and Cygwin programs is actually one of
>>the things that is a little tricky but it is not slated to go away.
>
>Right... I was pretty sure no one was out to *actually* remove anything 
>like this, but I'm just paranoid enough to make sure. :-) Thanks.

Hey, Corinna!  He actually believed me!

Mwahaha  *cough* ha!

Hmm.  Have to work on that one.

cgf

Re: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81

[mwoehlke]

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 04:32:05PM -0500, mwoehlke wrote:
>> Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>> Pipes between MS-DOS programs and Cygwin programs is actually one of
>>> the things that is a little tricky but it is not slated to go away.
>> Right... I was pretty sure no one was out to *actually* remove anything 
>> like this, but I'm just paranoid enough to make sure. :-) Thanks.
> 
> Hey, Corinna!  He actually believed me!
> 
> Mwahaha  *cough* ha!
> 
> Hmm.  Have to work on that one.

Heh. Need any pointers? My evil laugh isn't half bad...
"mwah-ha... Mwah-ha-hA... MWUU-HU-HOO-HOU-HUA-HA-HA-HAA" :-)

-- 
Matthew
vIMprove your life! Now on version 7!

Re: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Aug 16 15:40, mwoehlke wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >I'm wondering
> >why nobody complains that Linux doesn't understand drive letters.
> 
> Well, the obvious answer is because Linux doesn't *have* drive letters. ;-)

That's *the* major drawback of Linux.  When will Linux have drive
letters finally?  As long as Linux doesn't have drive letters, it's
totally unusable and the Linux people should not be surprised that
nobody will ever use Linux!!!1!


Corinna

Re: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81

[Douglas Goodall]

>
>On Aug 16 15:40, mwoehlke wrote:
> > Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > >I'm wondering
> > >why nobody complains that Linux doesn't understand drive letters.
> >
> > Well, the obvious answer is because Linux doesn't *have* drive letters. 
>;-)
>
>That's *the* major drawback of Linux.  When will Linux have drive
>letters finally?  As long as Linux doesn't have drive letters, it's
>totally unusable and the Linux people should not be surprised that
>nobody will ever use Linux!!!1!
>
>
>Corinna

What are you talking about. Either you like Unix or you don't. To the best 
of my knowledge,
FreeBSD doesn't have drive letters either. Its not the Unix way. Your 
position astounds me ;-)

Re: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81

[Christopher Faylor]

On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 02:47:50PM -0700, Douglas Goodall wrote:
>>On Aug 16 15:40, mwoehlke wrote:
>>> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>>>I'm wondering why nobody complains that Linux doesn't understand drive
>>>>letters.
>>>
>>>Well, the obvious answer is because Linux doesn't *have* drive letters.
>>;-)
>>
>>That's *the* major drawback of Linux.  When will Linux have drive
>>letters finally?  As long as Linux doesn't have drive letters, it's
>>totally unusable and the Linux people should not be surprised that
>>nobody will ever use Linux!!!1!
>
>What are you talking about.  Either you like Unix or you don't.  To the
>best of my knowledge, FreeBSD doesn't have drive letters either.  Its
>not the Unix way.  Your position astounds me ;-)

I'm pretty sure that HP/UX understands drive letters, though.

I have 30 years of experience in the computer industry so I am obviously
right about this.

cgf

Re: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81

[Douglas Goodall]

> >
> >What are you talking about.  Either you like Unix or you don't.  To the
> >best of my knowledge, FreeBSD doesn't have drive letters either.  Its
> >not the Unix way.  Your position astounds me ;-)
>
>I'm pretty sure that HP/UX understands drive letters, though.
>
>I have 30 years of experience in the computer industry so I am obviously
>right about this.
>
>cgf

This is where the IDD comes in I guess, Just because HP/UX may do it doesn't 
make it worth
emulating. Thats my opinion, not based on 40 years of experience in the 
computer industry,
but based on my experience since Unix Version 7.
dwg

Re: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81

[Christopher Faylor]

On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 03:28:23PM -0700, Douglas Goodall wrote:
>>>
>>>What are you talking about.  Either you like Unix or you don't.  To the
>>>best of my knowledge, FreeBSD doesn't have drive letters either.  Its
>>>not the Unix way.  Your position astounds me ;-)
>>
>>I'm pretty sure that HP/UX understands drive letters, though.
>>
>>I have 30 years of experience in the computer industry so I am obviously
>>right about this.
>
>This is where the IDD comes in I guess, Just because HP/UX may do it
>doesn't make it worth emulating.  Thats my opinion, not based on 40
>years of experience in the computer industry, but based on my
>experience since Unix Version 7.

I think linux probably has some kind of /proc file option setting to understand
drive letters.  Probably cygwin should emulate that.

cgf

Re: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Aug 16 18:38, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> I think linux probably has some kind of /proc file option setting to
> understand drive letters.  Probably cygwin should emulate that.

As far as I know there's no such option.  It seems to me this is really
called for and somebody should implement it.  Along these lines there
should be another /proc option which finally allows Linux users to use
the beloved backslashes as path separators.  I can't understand why
Linus deliberately changed the path separator from backslash to slash,
thus undermining an industry standard.  Intolerable.


Corinna

-- 
If you see irony or sarcasm in this mail, don't tell the hippos.

Re: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 09:12:27AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Aug 16 18:38, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>I think linux probably has some kind of /proc file option setting to
>>understand drive letters.  Probably cygwin should emulate that.
>
>As far as I know there's no such option.  It seems to me this is really
>called for and somebody should implement it.  Along these lines there
>should be another /proc option which finally allows Linux users to use
>the beloved backslashes as path separators.  I can't understand why
>Linus deliberately changed the path separator from backslash to slash,
>thus undermining an industry standard.  Intolerable.

<rant on>
I think it's probably just the standard Free Software "My way is better"
mentality.  The one thing that really bugs me about OSS is the insistence
on tinkering with tried-and-true ways of doing things.

For instance, the Gnome interface is just different enough from the standard
Windows interface to drive any user who has to flip back and forth between
the two up the wall.

Another real annoyance is the use of '-' and '--' for option specifiers.  Windows
uses just a single '/', just like VMS and TOPS-10.  Both OS's were around long
before UNiX/LinUX but that didn't stop the developers from inventing their own
way of doing things.

Sometimes I think about writing my own OS which corrects these inequities but
I really just don't have the time...
</rant off>

cgf

Re: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81

[George]

On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 10:34:04AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 09:12:27AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Aug 16 18:38, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >>I think linux probably has some kind of /proc file option setting to
> >>understand drive letters.  Probably cygwin should emulate that.
> >
> >As far as I know there's no such option.  It seems to me this is really
> >called for and somebody should implement it.  Along these lines there
> >should be another /proc option which finally allows Linux users to use
> >the beloved backslashes as path separators.  I can't understand why
> >Linus deliberately changed the path separator from backslash to slash,
> >thus undermining an industry standard.  Intolerable.
> 
> <rant on>
> [...]
>
> Another real annoyance is the use of '-' and '--' for option specifiers.  

I've found it more annoying to have to re-read a manpage for a program 
that I have little interest in, rarely use and has too many features to 
count to remember WTF it is that my short-option-invocation of it does 
in some one-off script I wrote.  

> Windows uses just a single '/', 

Off the top of my head, but in alphabetic order ...

arp
control
dumpel
expand
nbtstat
netstat
ntrights
nslookup
ping
regedit
route
sclist
su
sysprep
tracert

All use a dash, except when they use a slash.  Which all do.  At least 
for the help output.  Except in those cases where there is no help 
output.  

Mind you, the above examples may or may not be representative of other 
programs where a '-?' is required in place of a '/?', notwithstanding 
those cases where usage information is output only when no options are 
provided, or an incorrect option is given, further notwithstanding those 
cases where, in the case of no options being provided, the program will 
hang, waiting for input.

If anyone is starting to see a pattern here, do let me know.

> Sometimes I think about writing my own OS which corrects these 
> inequities but I really just don't have the time...

Judging from a recent overlong thread on the main list, I'd suggest 
there's ample evidence that rants taste great and are more satisfying, 
in addition to taking less time.  Hardly words to live by, but they 
might go well with a beer.  If not, just enjoy the beer while 
remembering the good old days before DOS discovered directories.

-- 
George

Re: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81

[Joe Smith]

"George" <d1945@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message 
news:20060817233752.GA1048@home...

>
> Off the top of my head, but in alphabetic order ...
>
> arp
> control
> dumpel
> expand
> nbtstat
> netstat
> ntrights
> nslookup
> ping
> regedit
> route
> sclist
> su

Windows has su??? 

Re: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81

[mwoehlke]

Igor Peshansky wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Igor Peshansky wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, Igor Peshansky wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Alternatively, you can try to implement a $(cygpath ...) function in
>>>> make and submit *that* to the upstream maintainers.
>>> FWIW, I don't think such a function is a good idea, and if it is
>>> proposed on the Make mailing list, I will probably object to it.
>>>
>>> The reason is that adding such a function goes against portability of
>>> Makefiles across different ports of Make,
>> ...which you would already have with cl commands and DOS paths...
> 
> Actually, sorry, I've misread the above.  Doesn't GNU make already have a
> plethora of functions not present in other makes?  What's wrong with one
> more?  If "cygpath" is too system-specific a name, let's pick one that
> isn't ("pathconv"?).
> 	Igor

Hey! Get off my computer! :-)

("pathconv" is exactly the name I gave to my tool that hides the 
differences between Cygwin's path conversion and Interix's path conversion.)

-- 
Matthew
Websites such as ... Wikipedia ... are reputed to occupy users for 
periods in excess of 5 hours. -- Wikipedia article on Internet Addiction

Re: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81

[Igor Peshansky]

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, mwoehlke wrote:

> Igor Peshansky wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Igor Peshansky wrote:
> > > On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, Igor Peshansky wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Alternatively, you can try to implement a $(cygpath ...) function in
> > > > > make and submit *that* to the upstream maintainers.
> > > > FWIW, I don't think such a function is a good idea, and if it is
> > > > proposed on the Make mailing list, I will probably object to it.
> > > >
> > > > The reason is that adding such a function goes against portability of
> > > > Makefiles across different ports of Make,
> > > ...which you would already have with cl commands and DOS paths...
> >
> > Actually, sorry, I've misread the above.  Doesn't GNU make already have a
> > plethora of functions not present in other makes?  What's wrong with one
> > more?  If "cygpath" is too system-specific a name, let's pick one that
> > isn't ("pathconv"?).
> > 	Igor
>
> Hey! Get off my computer! :-)
>
> ("pathconv" is exactly the name I gave to my tool that hides the
> differences between Cygwin's path conversion and Interix's path
> conversion.)

Eh, get a better firewall. :-)
	Igor
-- 
				http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_	    pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu | igor@watson.ibm.com
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		Igor Peshansky, Ph.D. (name changed!)
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		old name: Igor Pechtchanski
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

"Las! je suis sot... -Mais non, tu ne l'es pas, puisque tu t'en rends compte."
"But no -- you are no fool; you call yourself a fool, there's proof enough in
that!" -- Rostand, "Cyrano de Bergerac"

Re: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81

[mwoehlke]

Igor Peshansky wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, mwoehlke wrote:
>> Igor Peshansky wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Igor Peshansky wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, Igor Peshansky wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Alternatively, you can try to implement a $(cygpath ...) function in
>>>>>> make and submit *that* to the upstream maintainers.
>>>>> FWIW, I don't think such a function is a good idea, and if it is
>>>>> proposed on the Make mailing list, I will probably object to it.
>>>>>
>>>>> The reason is that adding such a function goes against portability of
>>>>> Makefiles across different ports of Make,
>>>> ...which you would already have with cl commands and DOS paths...
>>> Actually, sorry, I've misread the above.  Doesn't GNU make already have a
>>> plethora of functions not present in other makes?  What's wrong with one
>>> more?  If "cygpath" is too system-specific a name, let's pick one that
>>> isn't ("pathconv"?).
>>
>> Hey! Get off my computer! :-)
>>
>> ("pathconv" is exactly the name I gave to my tool that hides the
>> differences between Cygwin's path conversion and Interix's path
>> conversion.)
> 
> Eh, get a better firewall. :-)

I'll talk to my IT department. ;p

-- 
Matthew
Websites such as ... Wikipedia ... are reputed to occupy users for 
periods in excess of 5 hours. -- Wikipedia article on Internet Addiction

RE: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81

[Dave Korn]

On 17 August 2006 17:12, mwoehlke wrote:

> Igor Peshansky wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, mwoehlke wrote:
>>> Igor Peshansky wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Igor Peshansky wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, Igor Peshansky wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Alternatively, you can try to implement a $(cygpath ...) function in
>>>>>>> make and submit *that* to the upstream maintainers.
>>>>>> FWIW, I don't think such a function is a good idea, and if it is
>>>>>> proposed on the Make mailing list, I will probably object to it.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The reason is that adding such a function goes against portability of
>>>>>> Makefiles across different ports of Make,
>>>>> ...which you would already have with cl commands and DOS paths...
>>>> Actually, sorry, I've misread the above.  Doesn't GNU make already have a
>>>> plethora of functions not present in other makes?  What's wrong with one
>>>> more?  If "cygpath" is too system-specific a name, let's pick one that
>>>> isn't ("pathconv"?).
>>> 
>>> Hey! Get off my computer! :-)
>>> 
>>> ("pathconv" is exactly the name I gave to my tool that hides the
>>> differences between Cygwin's path conversion and Interix's path
>>> conversion.)
>> 
>> Eh, get a better firewall. :-)
> 
> I'll talk to my IT department. ;p

  Relax, we already did it.

  In your name.  From your computer.

  Then we went into theirs and sent you a reply, but it's awfully rude.  You
don't want to read it.  So we deleted the mail spool.

  However, we have installed a firewall on your PC for you.  Just one thing,
though, I think we put it in the wrong way round.  I think we just protected
the rest of the internet from you.  So you may not see this reply.


    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

RE: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81

[Igor Peshansky]

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Dave Korn wrote:

> On 17 August 2006 17:12, mwoehlke wrote:
>
> > Igor Peshansky wrote:
> >> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, mwoehlke wrote:
> >>> Igor Peshansky wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Igor Peshansky wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, Igor Peshansky wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Alternatively, you can try to implement a $(cygpath ...) function in
> >>>>>>> make and submit *that* to the upstream maintainers.
> >>>>>> FWIW, I don't think such a function is a good idea, and if it is
> >>>>>> proposed on the Make mailing list, I will probably object to it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The reason is that adding such a function goes against portability of
> >>>>>> Makefiles across different ports of Make,
> >>>>> ...which you would already have with cl commands and DOS paths...
> >>>> Actually, sorry, I've misread the above.  Doesn't GNU make already have a
> >>>> plethora of functions not present in other makes?  What's wrong with one
> >>>> more?  If "cygpath" is too system-specific a name, let's pick one that
> >>>> isn't ("pathconv"?).
> >>>
> >>> Hey! Get off my computer! :-)
> >>>
> >>> ("pathconv" is exactly the name I gave to my tool that hides the
> >>> differences between Cygwin's path conversion and Interix's path
> >>> conversion.)
> >>
> >> Eh, get a better firewall. :-)
> >
> > I'll talk to my IT department. ;p
>
>   Relax, we already did it.
>
>   In your name.  From your computer.
>
>   Then we went into theirs and sent you a reply, but it's awfully rude.
> You don't want to read it.  So we deleted the mail spool.
>
>   However, we have installed a firewall on your PC for you.  Just one
> thing, though, I think we put it in the wrong way round.  I think we
> just protected the rest of the internet from you.  So you may not see
> this reply.

Oh, and Cygwin may not work too well now, since we've installed
Symantec...
	Igor
-- 
				http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_	    pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu | igor@watson.ibm.com
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		Igor Peshansky, Ph.D. (name changed!)
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		old name: Igor Pechtchanski
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

"Las! je suis sot... -Mais non, tu ne l'es pas, puisque tu t'en rends compte."
"But no -- you are no fool; you call yourself a fool, there's proof enough in
that!" -- Rostand, "Cyrano de Bergerac"

Re: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81

[mwoehlke]

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 05:53:17PM -0500, mwoehlke wrote:
>> John W. Eaton wrote:
>>> On 15-Aug-2006, Joachim Achtzehnter wrote:
>>>> Clearly, developers make a huge contribution,
>>>> nobody is denying this, but to suggest that *only* developers contribute
>>>> and everybody else should therefore just shut up
>>> I never said everyone else should "just shut up".  My point was that
>>> if you aren't contributing in some way, then you shouldn't expect your
>>> complaining to carry much weight.  The way to get things done is to do
>>> the work, not just complain and hope that people do something for you.
>> ...or offer money. That carries more weight than complaining. :-)
>>
>> However that doesn't work in all cases. This I am reasonably confident 
>> is one of them. But as a general rule...
> 
> No, it would work in this case, but I hesitate to name my price since
> it will surely make me sound even more evil.

Ok, I thought I'd heard somewhere in a thread on this topic that you 
wouldn't do it for $$ in this instance. Apologies if my memory is 
faulty. :-)

-- 
Matthew
Only Joe suffers from schizophrenia. The rest of us enjoy it.

Re: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81

[Christopher Faylor]

On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 06:57:16PM -0500, mwoehlke wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 05:53:17PM -0500, mwoehlke wrote:
>>>John W. Eaton wrote:
>>>>On 15-Aug-2006, Joachim Achtzehnter wrote:
>>>>>Clearly, developers make a huge contribution,
>>>>>nobody is denying this, but to suggest that *only* developers contribute
>>>>>and everybody else should therefore just shut up
>>>>I never said everyone else should "just shut up".  My point was that
>>>>if you aren't contributing in some way, then you shouldn't expect your
>>>>complaining to carry much weight.  The way to get things done is to do
>>>>the work, not just complain and hope that people do something for you.
>>>...or offer money. That carries more weight than complaining. :-)
>>>
>>>However that doesn't work in all cases. This I am reasonably confident 
>>>is one of them. But as a general rule...
>>
>>No, it would work in this case, but I hesitate to name my price since
>>it will surely make me sound even more evil.
>
>Ok, I thought I'd heard somewhere in a thread on this topic that you 
>wouldn't do it for $$ in this instance. Apologies if my memory is 
>faulty. :-)

I don't remember making that statement but I guess it is possible that
I did.

cgf

RE: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81

[Gary R. Van Sickle]

[TTTTLTLLLT'ing this to the proper list, unlike some Korns et al I could
mention]

> From: Joachim Achtzehnter
> 
> Dave Korn wrote:
> 
> > Every single day for the past month, we have had at least 
> > seventy-four[*] identical duplicate redundant reports of this...
> 
> Have you considered that there just might be a significant 
> message hidden in this from your user community? As somebody 
> who was involved in one of these earlier threads, let me also 
> mention that to every one of these seventy-four[*] reports 
> you see on the mailing list there is another user who 
> expresses his annoyance with these changes in private emails, 
> having given up on posting such things because of the hostile 
> reaction one gets these days for expressing views about 
> requirements that certain people here don't like.
> 

"These days"?  You're new 'round these parts, huh?

> Christopher Faylor wrote:
> 
> > I just don't care about MS-DOS paths.
> 
> Fair enough, you've made that pretty clear in previous posts.
> 

It's kind of sad really: There used to be a time when Cygwin was more "POSIX
And Windows Living In Relative Harmony" than "Any flavor as long as it's
Linux".

> > If I am somehow conveying the impression that there is some 
> threshold 
> > of affected users which will cause me to spend my own time 
> trying to 
> > modify make, let me make it clear - that is not the case.
> 
> If this implies that Cygwin maintainers generally "just don't 
> care" about their users anymore perhaps those users will have 
> to band together some day and consider creating a Cygwin fork...
> 

Where do you think MinGW came from?

> Joachim
> 

-- 
Gary R. Van Sickle

RE: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81

[Dave Korn]

On 15 August 2006 02:18, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:

> [TTTTLTLLLT'ing this to the proper list, unlike some Korns et al I could
> mention]

  Way ahead of you, Gaaaar-eeee!

> 
> Where do you think MinGW came from?
> 

  Everyone knows where MinGWs come from.  The hippo brings them.


    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

RE: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81

[Gary R. Van Sickle]

> From: Dave Korn
> To: 'arf arf arf woof woof'

Ah, dude, seriously: you're barking like a dog now.  Not a good sign.

> 
> On 15 August 2006 02:18, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> 
> > [TTTTLTLLLT'ing this to the proper list, unlike some Korns et al I 
> > could mention]
> 
>   Way ahead of you, Gaaaar-eeee!
> 

Wha-huh?:
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2006-08/msg00547.html

Not good Korns, not good!  That's one!

> > 
> > Where do you think MinGW came from?
> > 
> 
>   Everyone knows where MinGWs come from.  The hippo brings them.
> 

Hehe, yeah, it *is* cute when they still belive in Hippoclaus.

> 
>     cheers,
>       DaveK
> --
> Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
> 

-- 
Gary R. Van Sickle
 

RE: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81

[Dave Korn]

On 15 August 2006 02:32, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:

>> From: Dave Korn
>> To: 'arf arf arf woof woof'
> 
> Ah, dude, seriously: you're barking like a dog now.  Not a good sign.
> 

  This entire conversation is barking.  I'm just honest about it!

>> 
>> On 15 August 2006 02:18, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
>> 
>>> [TTTTLTLLLT'ing this to the proper list, unlike some Korns et al I
>>> could mention]
>> 
>>   Way ahead of you, Gaaaar-eeee!
>> 
> 
> Wha-huh?:
> http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2006-08/msg00547.html
> 
> Not good Korns, not good!  That's one!

  I plead time-travel!  Hah!  Get out of that one!  (Don't bother, you already
will have didn'ted!)

> 
>>> 
>>> Where do you think MinGW came from?
>>> 
>> 
>>   Everyone knows where MinGWs come from.  The hippo brings them.
>> 
> 
> Hehe, yeah, it *is* cute when they still belive in Hippoclaus.
> 

  Believe in him?  How could anyone doubt?

  Man, it takes almost the whole rest of the year just to get his fat ass
unstuck back out of the chimney!


    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

RE: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81

[Igor Peshansky]

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006, Dave Korn wrote:

> On 15 August 2006 02:32, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
>
> >> From: Dave Korn
> >> To: 'arf arf arf woof woof'
> >
> > Ah, dude, seriously: you're barking like a dog now.  Not a good sign.
>
>   This entire conversation is barking.  I'm just honest about it!
>
> >> On 15 August 2006 02:18, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> >>
> >>> [TTTTLTLLLT'ing this to the proper list, unlike some Korns et al I
> >>> could mention]
> >>
> >>   Way ahead of you, Gaaaar-eeee!
> >
> > Wha-huh?:
> > http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2006-08/msg00547.html
> >
> > Not good Korns, not good!  That's one!
>
>   I plead time-travel!  Hah!  Get out of that one!  (Don't bother, you already
> will have didn'ted!)
>
> >>> Where do you think MinGW came from?
> >>
> >>   Everyone knows where MinGWs come from.  The hippo brings them.
> >
> > Hehe, yeah, it *is* cute when they still belive in Hippoclaus.
>
>   Believe in him?  How could anyone doubt?
>
>   Man, it takes almost the whole rest of the year just to get his fat ass
> unstuck back out of the chimney!

That's because somebody's chimneys are too narrow! (a liberal mis-quoting
of AA Milne).
	Igor
-- 
				http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_	    pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu | igor@watson.ibm.com
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		Igor Peshansky, Ph.D. (name changed!)
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		old name: Igor Pechtchanski
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

"Las! je suis sot... -Mais non, tu ne l'es pas, puisque tu t'en rends compte."
"But no -- you are no fool; you call yourself a fool, there's proof enough in
that!" -- Rostand, "Cyrano de Bergerac"

RE: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81

[Gary R. Van Sickle]

> From: Dave Korn
> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 9:36 PM
> To: 'only 325 hippoing days until christmas'
> Subject: RE: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81
> 
> On 15 August 2006 02:32, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> 
> >> From: Dave Korn
> >> To: 'arf arf arf woof woof'
> > 
> > Ah, dude, seriously: you're barking like a dog now.  Not a 
> good sign.
> > 
> 
>   This entire conversation is barking.  I'm just honest about it!
> 

Mmm, no, it looks like it's mainly you barking.

> >> 
> >> On 15 August 2006 02:18, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> >> 
> >>> [TTTTLTLLLT'ing this to the proper list, unlike some 
> Korns et al I 
> >>> could mention]
> >> 
> >>   Way ahead of you, Gaaaar-eeee!
> >> 
> > 
> > Wha-huh?:
> > http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2006-08/msg00547.html
> > 
> > Not good Korns, not good!  That's one!
> 
>   I plead time-travel!  Hah!  Get out of that one!  (Don't 
> bother, you already will have didn'ted!)
> 

Pish posh.  I shall simply get in the Cygwin Time Machine, reverse the
polarity of the neutron flow, and...

...oh dear...

...now I'm back in the halcyon days of B20.  Well, if anybody needs a copy
of The One True Cygwin, let me know and I'll bring back a few copies.  IIRC,
it had support for DOS paths in makefiles for some reason.

> > 
> >>> 
> >>> Where do you think MinGW came from?
> >>> 
> >> 
> >>   Everyone knows where MinGWs come from.  The hippo brings them.
> >> 
> > 
> > Hehe, yeah, it *is* cute when they still belive in Hippoclaus.
> > 
> 
>   Believe in him?  How could anyone doubt?
> 

Yeuh-oh!  Nevermind Korns!  (aside: Yes... but let him dream. ;-))

>   Man, it takes almost the whole rest of the year just to get 
> his fat ass unstuck back out of the chimney!
          ^^^

Ouch.  That's two.

Or, wait, was potty mouth ok?  Oh dear oh dear, it is *ever* so difficult to
keep all these rules and regulations straight!

> 
>     cheers,
>       DaveK
> --
> Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
> 

-- 
Gary R. Van Sickle
 

RE: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81

[Dave Korn]

On 15 August 2006 05:06, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:


>>   Man, it takes almost the whole rest of the year just to get
>> his fat ass unstuck back out of the chimney!
>           ^^^
> 
> Ouch.  That's two.
> 
> Or, wait, was potty mouth ok?  Oh dear oh dear, it is *ever* so difficult to
> keep all these rules and regulations straight!

  Oh, don't be such an ass, Gary.  You're perfectly happy to use equally mild
language yourself on occasion!

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

RE: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81

[Igor Peshansky]

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006, Dave Korn wrote:

> On 15 August 2006 05:06, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
>
> >>   Man, it takes almost the whole rest of the year just to get
> >> his fat ass unstuck back out of the chimney!
> >           ^^^
> >
> > Ouch.  That's two.
> >
> > Or, wait, was potty mouth ok?  Oh dear oh dear, it is *ever* so
> > difficult to keep all these rules and regulations straight!
>
>   Oh, don't be such an ass, Gary.  You're perfectly happy to use equally
> mild language yourself on occasion!

There was a young girl from Madras,
And she had a remarkable ass.
It wasn't round and pink
(As you might think) --
It was gray, had long ears, and ate grass.
	Igor
-- 
				http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_	    pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu | igor@watson.ibm.com
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		Igor Peshansky, Ph.D. (name changed!)
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		old name: Igor Pechtchanski
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

"Las! je suis sot... -Mais non, tu ne l'es pas, puisque tu t'en rends compte."
"But no -- you are no fool; you call yourself a fool, there's proof enough in
that!" -- Rostand, "Cyrano de Bergerac"

Re: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81

[Christopher Faylor]

On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 08:18:23PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
>[TTTTLTLLLT'ing this to the proper list, unlike some Korns et al I
>could mention]

Chuckle.

http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-talk/2006-q3/msg00159.html

cgf

RE: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81

[Gary R. Van Sickle]

> From: Christopher Faylor
> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 8:29 PM
> To: The Cygwin-Talk Maiming List
> Subject: Re: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81
> 
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 08:18:23PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> >[TTTTLTLLLT'ing this to the proper list, unlike some Korns et al I 
> >could mention]
> 
> Chuckle.
> 
> http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-talk/2006-q3/msg00159.html
> 
> cgf

Alright Chris, alright, you can be the "et al":
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2006-08/msg00528.html

-- 
Gary R. Van Sickle
 

RE: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81

[Dave Korn]

On 15 August 2006 02:35, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:

>> From: Christopher Faylor
>> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 8:29 PM
>> To: The Cygwin-Talk Maiming List
>> Subject: Re: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81
>> 
>> On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 08:18:23PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
>>> [TTTTLTLLLT'ing this to the proper list, unlike some Korns et al I
>>> could mention]
>> 
>> Chuckle.
>> 
>> http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-talk/2006-q3/msg00159.html
>> 
>> cgf
> 
> Alright Chris, alright, you can be the "et al":
> http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2006-08/msg00528.html

  http://tinyurl.com/qh6nr !


    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

RE: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81

[Gary R. Van Sickle]

> From: Dave Korn
> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 9:41 PM
> To: 'no, i'm spartacusbert'
> Subject: RE: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81
> 
> On 15 August 2006 02:35, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> 
> >> From: Christopher Faylor
> >> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 8:29 PM
> >> To: The Cygwin-Talk Maiming List
> >> Subject: Re: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81
> >> 
> >> On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 08:18:23PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> >>> [TTTTLTLLLT'ing this to the proper list, unlike some 
> Korns et al I 
> >>> could mention]
> >> 
> >> Chuckle.
> >> 
> >> http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-talk/2006-q3/msg00159.html
> >> 
> >> cgf
> > 
> > Alright Chris, alright, you can be the "et al":
> > http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2006-08/msg00528.html
> 
>   http://tinyurl.com/qh6nr !

http://tinyurl.com/rce3b .

>     cheers,
>       DaveK
> --
> Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
> 

-- 
Gary R. Van Sickle
 

RE: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81

[Dave Korn]

On 15 August 2006 05:16, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:

>> From: Dave Korn
>> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 9:41 PM
>> To: 'no, i'm spartacusbert'
>> Subject: RE: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81
>> 
>> On 15 August 2006 02:35, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
>> 
>>>> From: Christopher Faylor
>>>> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 8:29 PM
>>>> To: The Cygwin-Talk Maiming List
>>>> Subject: Re: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81
>>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 08:18:23PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
>>>>> [TTTTLTLLLT'ing this to the proper list, unlike some Korns et al I
>>>>> could mention]
>>>> 
>>>> Chuckle.
>>>> 
>>>> http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-talk/2006-q3/msg00159.html
>>>> 
>>>> cgf
>>> 
>>> Alright Chris, alright, you can be the "et al":
>>> http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2006-08/msg00528.html
>> 
>>   http://tinyurl.com/qh6nr !
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/rce3b .


  Ewww!  Gary, how *could* you?  That's the most disgusting thing I've ever
unsuspectingly clicked on!  Far worse even than goatse!  I'm just off to scrub
my eyeballs out with bleach and glasspaper!


    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

RE: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81

[Igor Peshansky]

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:

> > From: Dave Korn
> > Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 9:41 PM
> > To: 'no, i'm spartacusbert'
> > Subject: RE: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81
> >
> > On 15 August 2006 02:35, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> >
> > >> From: Christopher Faylor
> > >> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 8:29 PM
> > >> To: The Cygwin-Talk Maiming List
> > >> Subject: Re: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 08:18:23PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> > >>> [TTTTLTLLLT'ing this to the proper list, unlike some
> > Korns et al I
> > >>> could mention]
> > >>
> > >> Chuckle.
> > >>
> > >> http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-talk/2006-q3/msg00159.html
> > >>
> > >> cgf
> > >
> > > Alright Chris, alright, you can be the "et al":
> > > http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2006-08/msg00528.html
> >
> >   http://tinyurl.com/qh6nr !
>
> http://tinyurl.com/rce3b .

"It's getting obscuriouser and obscuriouser..." (a liberal mis-quoting of
Lewis Carroll).
	Igor
-- 
				http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_	    pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu | igor@watson.ibm.com
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		Igor Peshansky, Ph.D. (name changed!)
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		old name: Igor Pechtchanski
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

"Las! je suis sot... -Mais non, tu ne l'es pas, puisque tu t'en rends compte."
"But no -- you are no fool; you call yourself a fool, there's proof enough in
that!" -- Rostand, "Cyrano de Bergerac"