Re: Cygwin and config.nice
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On 6/13/06, Malcolm Rowe <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> Ah, thanks for explaining that - I hadn't noticed that it moved the
>> old config.nice out the way first (and that also explains the failure
>> I found - I used a config.nice generated by r19919 with a pre-19919
> I am -1 on the portion of this change that creates a config.nice.old
> in the build directory.
>> Do you think we should add a comment to document the reason that we're
>> moving the old config.nice out of the way first? It's not immediately
>> obvious that we're doing it to appease Cygwin.
> I don't care about cygwin - but we shouldn't be adding turds to the
> build system to work around a buggy OS. If you must have that file
> present on cygwin - fine, but it shouldn't be present anywhere else.
> -- justin
I feel that saving one previous config.nice as config.nice.old is a
globally useful feature, and that it avoids a Cygwin problem is just a
Preserving an old config.nice is a useful defence against configuring
with a different set of arguments, and then later realizing you've
accidentally overwritten your standard config.nice.
Received on Mon Jun 19 14:00:59 2006
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev