This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-talk
mailing list for the cygwin project.
Re: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81
- From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-no-personal-reply-please at cygwin dot com>
- To: The Cygwin-Talk Maiming List <cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 14:45:56 -0400
- Subject: Re: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81
- 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> <ebvnm7$ong$2@sea.gmane.org>
- Reply-to: cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com
- Reply-to: The Cygwin-Talk Maiming List <cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com>
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