try try again

try try again

[perlspinr]

Still hoping that someone will find this important 
enough to answer.

An updated detail is that I can override the value 
of "MACHTYPE" and "HOSTTYPE" in Cygwin per se, but not 
in MSYS -- Earnie? CC:ing you this time.

   Soren Andersen
----------------------  Forwarded Message:  ---------------------
From:    perlspinr@att.net
To:      cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: A small question on machine id
Date:    Sun, 26 May 2002 19:13:20 +0000

The formal architecture triplet like:
cpu-company-os(-kernel)

on my Pentium machine gives
MACHTYPE=i686-pc-cygwin
and it's the same in Earnie's current Msys cygwin DLL -
based system as in Cygwin proper.

I am wondering why?

Obviously one would expect the shell variable value to 
be "i586-pc-(cygwin|msys)"?

  TIA,
   Soren Andersen (perlspinr)

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: try try again

[Christopher Faylor]

On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 08:18:00PM +0000, perlspinr@att.net wrote:
>Still hoping that someone will find this important enough to answer.
>
>An updated detail is that I can override the value of "MACHTYPE" and
>"HOSTTYPE" in Cygwin per se, but not in MSYS -- Earnie?  CC:ing you
>this time.

Again, this is *not* an Msys mailing list.  I find the concept of a
cygwin fork annoying enough without having to see discussion of it here.

If you have msys questions seek elsewhere.

As to why it isn't i586 on your Pentium, after a cursory glance at the
source (gasp!), it's obviously because this was the configuration
triplet used to build bash.  Performing complicated "what type of cpu is
this?" checks is really not something I'd want my shell to spend time
on.  So bash apaprently wisely just provides information based on whatever
it was built for.

If you need better information, use uname.

cgf

>From:    perlspinr@att.net
>To:      cygwin@cygwin.com
>Subject: A small question on machine id
>Date:    Sun, 26 May 2002 19:13:20 +0000
>
>The formal architecture triplet like:
>cpu-company-os(-kernel)
>
>on my Pentium machine gives
>MACHTYPE=i686-pc-cygwin
>and it's the same in Earnie's current Msys cygwin DLL -
>based system as in Cygwin proper.
>
>I am wondering why?
>
>Obviously one would expect the shell variable value to be
>"i586-pc-(cygwin|msys)"?

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: try try again

[Earnie Boyd]

See the source for winsup/cygwin/uname.cc.

Earnie.

perlspinr@att.net wrote:
> 
> Still hoping that someone will find this important
> enough to answer.
> 
> An updated detail is that I can override the value
> of "MACHTYPE" and "HOSTTYPE" in Cygwin per se, but not
> in MSYS -- Earnie? CC:ing you this time.
> 
>    Soren Andersen
> ----------------------  Forwarded Message:  ---------------------
> From:    perlspinr@att.net
> To:      cygwin@cygwin.com
> Subject: A small question on machine id
> Date:    Sun, 26 May 2002 19:13:20 +0000
> 
> The formal architecture triplet like:
> cpu-company-os(-kernel)
> 
> on my Pentium machine gives
> MACHTYPE=i686-pc-cygwin
> and it's the same in Earnie's current Msys cygwin DLL -
> based system as in Cygwin proper.
> 
> I am wondering why?
> 
> Obviously one would expect the shell variable value to
> be "i586-pc-(cygwin|msys)"?
> 
>   TIA,
>    Soren Andersen (perlspinr)
> 
> --
> Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
> Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
> Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
> FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: try try again

[perlspinr]

> On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 08:18:00PM +0000, 
perlspinr@att.net wrote:
> >Still hoping that someone will find this important 
enough to answer.
> >
> >An updated detail is that I can override the value 
of "MACHTYPE" and
> >"HOSTTYPE" in Cygwin per se, but not in MSYS -- 
Earnie?  CC:ing you
> >this time.
> 
> Again, this is *not* an Msys mailing list.  I find the 
concept of a
> cygwin fork annoying enough without having to see 
discussion of it here.
> 
> If you have msys questions seek elsewhere.
> 
> As to why it isn't i586 on your Pentium, after a 
cursory glance at the
> source (gasp!), it's obviously because this was the 
configuration
> triplet used to build bash.  Performing 
complicated "what type of cpu is
> this?" checks is really not something I'd want my 
shell to spend time
> on.  So bash apaprently wisely just provides 
information based on whatever
> it was built for.
> 
> If you need better information, use uname.

I need proper information for makefiles to get, and I 
*am* using uname to get that info. It's wrong too (I am 
NOT at that system this pm and cannot double-triple-
check that, but am very close to sure, and if I was 
wrong I'll post a retraction/correction about it later, 
when I've had a chance to re-check it, if I am not 
banned from the List by then). I wouldn't have bothered 
the List if the solution was as simple as that. At most, 
I am guilty of guessing incorrectly that the shell 
(BASH) variables would come from the same place -- 
somewhere in the guts of Cygwin1.dll -- that uname gets 
those data. That kind of guessing isn't *lazy* and it 
isn't flameworthy; it's an honest try at moving towards 
the solution for the problem. Why I would be expected to 
guess that you'd think it not worthwhile to have bash 
check this in the manner you describe is totally 
unpredictable by anyone with normal knowledge of things 
Cygwin. Your notions of what's "normal" knowledge of 
Cygwin are clearly completely out of touch with average 
expectations, of course.

Frankly, to be OT for a moment, I am far beyond caring 
what you find annoying, Chris -- although last I had 
read from you about msys I saw no hint that you found 
Earnie's project particularly objectionable -- and that 
lack of caring goes (double) for Larry Hall too.

Chris, you are the most out-of-control egomaniac I think 
I have ever come across on semi- and professional fora 
such as this; your surly objections to things people 
post and your irate condemnations for having the 
temerity to ask, have completely departed from the 
bounds of reason. I deliberately ignore threads like the 
recent ad-hominum against you (last week+) because I 
consider my time too valuable to me to waste on such 
stuff, but I find myself now draw irresistibly to whole-
heartedly issue a long-deserved

    F U C K  Y O U.

and invite you to consequently ban me from "your" List.

You recently moaned that people create How-To info 
pertaining to cygwin (the context was some tips on 
setting up ssh on cygwin or related to that), on 
external sites, rather than contributing to the material 
kept at redhat.com/cygwin. Take a look in the MIRROR 
next time you are moved to wonder about that. Your 
extreme personality disorder is enough to make any but 
the most hardy, abuse-insensitive soul decide to have as 
little to do with "Cygwin Officialdom" as possible.

  With Apologies to (most) other readers,
      Soren Andersen

--------------------------

> >From:    perlspinr@att.net
> >To:      cygwin@cygwin.com
> >Subject: A small question on machine id
> >Date:    Sun, 26 May 2002 19:13:20 +0000
> >
> >The formal architecture triplet like:
> >cpu-company-os(-kernel)
> >
> >on my Pentium machine gives
> >MACHTYPE=i686-pc-cygwin
> >and it's the same in Earnie's current Msys cygwin 
DLL -
> >based system as in Cygwin proper.
> >
> >I am wondering why?
> >
> >Obviously one would expect the shell variable value 
to be
> >"i586-pc-(cygwin|msys)"?


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: try try again

[Christopher Faylor]

On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 09:10:52PM +0000, perlspinr@att.net wrote:
>>If you need better information, use uname.
>
>I need proper information for makefiles to get, and I *am* using uname
>to get that info.  It's wrong too (I am NOT at that system this pm and
>cannot double-triple- check that, but am very close to sure, and if I
>was wrong I'll post a retraction/correction about it later, when I've
>had a chance to re-check it, if I am not banned from the List by then).
>I wouldn't have bothered the List if the solution was as simple as
>that.

That's actually far from obvious.  If uname is incorrect, this is the
first I've heard of it.  Rather than expecting the assumption of your
intelligence, why not demonstrate it by providing the information ahead
of time rather than becoming aggrieved when someone doesn't guess the
steps that you've taken to track down a problem?

>At most, I am guilty of guessing incorrectly that the shell (BASH)
>variables would come from the same place -- somewhere in the guts of
>Cygwin1.dll -- that uname gets those data.  That kind of guessing isn't
>*lazy* and it isn't flameworthy; it's an honest try at moving towards
>the solution for the problem.

On rereading my email, I can see that I should have skipped an
inappropriate "gasp!" and an "obviously".  I apologize for excessive use
of caustic words.  There was no reason for me to do that other than the
fact that I find your email style as annoying as you apparently find
mine.  I'll try to watch that in the future.

And, your assumption that bash could be getting its info from cygwin
is also not misplaced.  It is a logical assumption.

>Frankly, to be OT for a moment, I am far beyond caring what you find
>annoying, Chris -- although last I had read from you about msys I saw
>no hint that you found Earnie's project particularly objectionable --
>and that lack of caring goes (double) for Larry Hall too.

This was also the second time today that someone sought msys help
in the cygwin mailing list and I also redirected them elsewhere.

If you read this mailing list at all, you've certainly seen me and other
people mention that it is not intended as a forum for getting support on
other people's projects.  There really is no way you could miss that.
If it wasn't obvious from these responses, the words at
http://cygwin.com/lists.html should make it clear.

[rest of the personal attack deleted]

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: try try again

[Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)]

At 05:10 PM 5/28/2002, perlspinr@att.net wrote:
>Frankly, to be OT for a moment, I am far beyond caring 
>what you find annoying, Chris -- although last I had 
>read from you about msys I saw no hint that you found 
>Earnie's project particularly objectionable -- and that 
>lack of caring goes (double) for Larry Hall too.



>   With Apologies to (most) other readers,


Apology accepted.

Oh!  I just realized that I'm likely not included in with "most" other 
readers.   Oh well... ;-)




Larry Hall                              lhall@rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      http://www.rfk.com
838 Washington Street                   (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
Holliston, MA 01746                     (508) 893-9889 - FAX


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/