This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-talk
mailing list for the cygwin project.
Re: Why are Windows paths broken in make 3.81?
- From: Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes <sthoenna at efn dot org>
- To: cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com
- Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 21:26:11 -0700
- Subject: Re: Why are Windows paths broken in make 3.81?
- References: <9c2aabaf0607211629u4e29ffa1w5f09b3d8e5a923fc@mail.gmail.com> <e9rrqr$6ei$1@sea.gmane.org> <44C1796F.50308@netacquire.com> <20060722222244.GB18054@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> <44C4FF71.6050505@netacquire.com> <20060724184240.GB21218@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> <20060724185526.GA21744@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
- Reply-to: The Cygwin-Talk Maiming List <cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com>
On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 02:55:26PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> 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
> >>>>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 well on
> >>>the road towards perfection.
> >>
> >>This sarcastic response to one sentence out of a much longer post
> >>quoted in isolation suggests that a clarification is in order. Neither
> >>of my previous posts, not the one about the "threadlist_ix -1" error
> >>and not the one I wrote specifically in response to a claim that the
> >>recent changes to make were "not an inconvenience", were written with
> >>any expectations for a fix.
> >
> >Well, you *could* expect a fix if you provided enough details.
> >
> >It is pretty frustrating to see content-free bug reports like "there was
> >also some difference in newline handling" or "My big/complicated
> >makefile SEGVs". Whether you intended these as bug reports or not, they
> >are still reports of problems and no package maintainer wants to see
> >reported problems sent to thousand of people whether they were just
> s
> >intended to blow off steam or not.
A fine example of a non-content-free post (though it did take me a couple
of looks to see the content.)