Re: EMX on DOS

[Paul Edwards]

"Derek Robert Price" <derek@ximbiot.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.3012.1067874302.21628.bug-cvs@gnu.org...
> 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
> team.

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
environment.

> 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
introduced.

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
Posix compliant.

> 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
be supported.

> 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
> |know.
>
> 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
damn thing!

> |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.

BFN.  Paul.