[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: EMX on DOS
Re: EMX on DOS
Tue, 04 Nov 2003 10:59:45 GMT
"Derek Robert Price" <address@hidden> wrote in message news:address@hidden
> You have, in general, been submitting too many changes at once, most
> quite unclearly labeled and sorted and jumbled with other assumptions
> and declarations we are far from agreeing on yet, unless this fix is in
> one of my unread messages. Please send one per email, with clear,
> concise explanations and include ChangeLog messages and docs and tests
> when necessary.
I have already done that for the "has been added" bug.
> |As a separate issue, yes, I have BASH. But when I run
> |configure under Bash, it hangs my computer, and I need to
> |cold boot. I don't know why. But I never said my computer
> Sounds like an issue you should take up with the Cygwin development
If for some reason I required BASH, I might spend 5 hours
trying to get BASH working. I have no need for a working
BASH, I already have an arbitrary and unspecified posix
compliant environment, all I need is a posix compliant
version control system and I'll be set.
I've already submitted a minor fix that will create such an
> Or perhaps, since you are running on Windows, a simple uninstall
> - -> reboot -> reinstall -> reboot cycle will do the trick. I'd recommend
> the latest Cygwin release if you are using a very old one. Cygwin has
> come a long way in the last few years.
Or perhaps that will take many hours of work attempting
to recover from a strange set of quirks that that has
In actual fact, I am tickled pink that when running
"configure" (not gcc, which I am happy to run, but
"configure"), that when it hung my system requiring a
cold boot, that it didn't take out my FAT allocation
table, which would have cost me all the unbacked up
work, and many days of recovery effort.
> |had the ability to run shell scripts. What I said is that I have
> |a Posix programming environment, and that I can compile
> |Posix code. I can and do compile Posix code. Just as I
> |compile and run C89 code. THAT works.
> |Other people may have only a partial install of Cygwin
> |that doesn't have bash, or they may have a completely
> Then they should install the rest of the tools.
Portable code doesn't require tools. It merely needs to
folow the standard.
> We are not here to recreate portability tools,
Nope, that's what I'm here for, to convert CVS to be
> especially when it is unclear that they will
> remain supported.
This is the beauty of the 1.11.x branch. They don't need to
> These problems have been solved! Why solve them again?
The problem of having Posix compliant source code has indeed
been solved. By me. On the weekend.
> |different Posix system, or may have downloaded a
> |different gcc port that doesn't come with Bash. Or maybe
> |like me they can't run it for some other reason. I don't
> You are still the only person who has ever raised this issue. Another
For every one person who makes the effort to report a
problem, there's probably 1000 who were too lazy to,
or assume that being a free product, no-one will fix it
anyway. You get what you pay for etc.
Remember the -j -j to the current version? Even Larry
had been affected by that in the past.
> reason I'm not inclined to spend much time on it or want to clutter the
> CVS source code with directories of bitrotting source.
Clutter? If you consider supporting arbitrary and unspecified
Posix systems to be "clutter", can you create a "clutter" directory,
and put the Posix port, plus the EMX and Windows-NT stuff
there. It may be clutter to you, but the Windows-NT directory
is wonderful to me.
And the Posix one would have been wonderful to me when I
was trying to get the stupid configure script to work on my
unspecified and arbitrary posix environment (Sun Solaris).
HELLO CVS! I have a posix compiler, just compile the
> |But if they can provide a Posix environment, then Posix
> |compliant code should compile. No ifs, buts or maybes,
> |if it's Posix compliant, it should work.
> CVS is not POSIX compliant, as I've stated before.
Until last weekend, true. It doesn't need to be that way, it
never needed to be that way.
Re: EMX on DOS, Larry Jones, 2003/11/01
Re: EMX on DOS, Paul Edwards, 2003/11/02
- Re: EMX on DOS, (continued)
RE: EMX on DOS, Rick Genter, 2003/11/03
Re: EMX on DOS, Paul Edwards, 2003/11/04
- Re: EMX on DOS, Derek Robert Price, 2003/11/02
- Message not available
- Re: EMX on DOS, Derek Robert Price, 2003/11/03
- Message not available
- Re: EMX on DOS,
Paul Edwards <=