From: Keith M. <kei...@to...> - 2006-01-10 11:00:15
|
Julien Lecomte wrote: > I myself have problems compiling mingw-make, and will post > some email on the list or a bug tracker soon... I wonder if it's really worth persisting with our own port of GNU make-3.80? The official GNU maintainers now seem to be taking MinGW seriously, as a supported target for make-3.81. Maybe our effort would be better directed in supporting them, with bug reports and/or patches as appropriate, so that we may one day simply bundle a stock GNU make with MinGW. FWIW, I've recently successfully built GNU make-3.81beta4 as a MinGW binary. I haven't yet had time to thoroughly evaluate its behaviour, and I don't know how it will cope with spaces in path names; (this is the root cause of the problem to which the forum posting identified in the subject line relates). Any comments? Regards, Keith. |
From: Earnie B. <ea...@us...> - 2006-01-10 12:23:12
|
Quoting Keith MARSHALL <kei...@to...>: > Julien Lecomte wrote: >> I myself have problems compiling mingw-make, and will post >> some email on the list or a bug tracker soon... > I hope you mean the gnu make list and bug tracker. > I wonder if it's really worth persisting with our own port of > GNU make-3.80? > Yes, there are those who do not want MSYS. > The official GNU maintainers now seem to be taking MinGW seriously, > as a supported target for make-3.81. Maybe our effort would be > better directed in supporting them, with bug reports and/or patches > as appropriate, so that we may one day simply bundle a stock GNU > make with MinGW. > Thanks to Paul Smith, Eli Zaretskii and a few patch submitters. One of the reasons make-3.81 hasn't become official yet is because of the MinGW and MSYS builds. > FWIW, I've recently successfully built GNU make-3.81beta4 as a > MinGW binary. I haven't yet had time to thoroughly evaluate its > behaviour, and I don't know how it will cope with spaces in path > names; (this is the root cause of the problem to which the forum > posting identified in the subject line relates). > > Any comments? > Once the make-3.81 becomes official I would suggest a mingwPORT version. But then, there are those who do not want to install MSYS. Earnie Boyd ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. |
From: Keith M. <kei...@to...> - 2006-01-10 13:33:44
|
Earnie Boyd wrote, quoting me: >> I wonder if it's really worth persisting with our own port of >> GNU make-3.80? > > Yes, there are those who do not want MSYS. I'm not suggesting we shouldn't continue to *distribute* a native GNU make; I'm merely suggesting that our efforts might be better directed at helping to get an official GNU make-3.81 out the door, and then distribute a prebuilt vanilla binary based on that, rather than continuing to squash bugs in our own port of make-3.80. > Once the make-3.81 becomes official I would suggest a mingwPORT > version. But then, there are those who do not want to install MSYS. It's so quick and easy to build, even without MSYS, that a mingwPORT almost seems like overkill, particularly since we will surely want to distribute a prebuilt binary as part of MinGW, in any case. I could post a "Candidate" or "Snapshot" build today, based on the GNU stock make-3.81-beta-4, if there's any interest. Obviously, I don't intend to discontinue distribution of mingw32-make, based on GNU make-3.80, as the "Current" release, until we have an officially released GNU make-3.81, but is it really worth the effort of continuing to *maintain* it, since make-3.81 now seems imminent? There are plenty of other bug reports and outstanding patches to deal with, without diverting effort to maintenance of an obsolescent tool. Regards, Keith. |