* flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} @ 2003-11-20 12:25 Ben Elliston 2003-11-20 14:03 ` Ben Elliston ` (4 more replies) 0 siblings, 5 replies; 81+ messages in thread From: Ben Elliston @ 2003-11-20 12:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc, binutils, gdb; +Cc: rms, eggert Paul Eggert has been asking over the course of the last year when config.{guess,sub} will start to correctly identify Solaris version numbers. The problem is that config.guess misidentifies Solaris 7, 8, and 9, and it will probably misidentify Solaris 10 (unless Sun marketing changes Solaris names again). For example, on a Solaris 8 box, config.guess outputs "sparc-sun-solaris2.8"; but there never was and never will be a "Solaris 2.8", as Solaris 2.6 (SunOS 5.6) was immediately followed by Solaris 7 (SunOS 5.7). The time to fix this is now long overdue. Before I do, I want to give plenty of warning to the GNU packages that comprise the toolchain, as these are typically most sensitive to the output of config.guess. Any objections? I have documented the change in a new config/NEWS file that is already committed to subversions.gnu.org. Ben ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-11-20 12:25 flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} Ben Elliston @ 2003-11-20 14:03 ` Ben Elliston 2003-11-20 14:12 ` Eric Botcazou ` (3 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 0 replies; 81+ messages in thread From: Ben Elliston @ 2003-11-20 14:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc; +Cc: binutils, gdb Ben Elliston <bje@wasabisystems.com> writes: > The time to fix this is now long overdue. I forgot to mention that config.sub will offer aliases for a lengthy duration so that users won't be as surprised by this change. Ben ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-11-20 12:25 flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} Ben Elliston 2003-11-20 14:03 ` Ben Elliston @ 2003-11-20 14:12 ` Eric Botcazou 2003-11-20 18:29 ` Rainer Orth ` (2 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 0 replies; 81+ messages in thread From: Eric Botcazou @ 2003-11-20 14:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ben Elliston; +Cc: gcc, binutils, gdb, rms, eggert > Any objections? What's the rationale, apart from endorsing Sun's marketing changes? -- Eric Botcazou ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-11-20 12:25 flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} Ben Elliston 2003-11-20 14:03 ` Ben Elliston 2003-11-20 14:12 ` Eric Botcazou @ 2003-11-20 18:29 ` Rainer Orth 2003-11-20 20:31 ` Paul Eggert 2003-11-21 23:56 ` tm_gccmail 2003-11-27 18:55 ` Zack Weinberg 4 siblings, 1 reply; 81+ messages in thread From: Rainer Orth @ 2003-11-20 18:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ben Elliston; +Cc: gcc, binutils, gdb, rms, eggert Ben Elliston <bje@wasabisystems.com> writes: > Paul Eggert has been asking over the course of the last year when > config.{guess,sub} will start to correctly identify Solaris version > numbers. The problem is that config.guess misidentifies Solaris 7, 8, > and 9, and it will probably misidentify Solaris 10 (unless Sun > marketing changes Solaris names again). For example, on a Solaris 8 > box, config.guess outputs "sparc-sun-solaris2.8"; but there never was > and never will be a "Solaris 2.8", as Solaris 2.6 (SunOS 5.6) was > immediately followed by Solaris 7 (SunOS 5.7). > > The time to fix this is now long overdue. Before I do, I want to give > plenty of warning to the GNU packages that comprise the toolchain, as > these are typically most sensitive to the output of config.guess. Any > objections? I have documented the change in a new config/NEWS file > that is already committed to subversions.gnu.org. I consider this sort of change a maintenance nightmare: suddenly all packages that could handle all versions of Solaris 2 in the same way (matching *-*-solaris2*) have to handle *-*-solaris2*, *-*-solaris[789] and *-*-solaris2.1*. I see no real reason to follow Sun's marketing nonsense in this issue, and as you already indicate, there's a `good' change that Solaris 10 will be called differently again. All Sun employees are talking about Solaris Next, e.g., knowing all too well that marketing will get it's dirty fingers on this issue before FCS. I've been told that they were very close to calling Solaris 9 something completely different. If one really *must* change something for technical correctness, switch to *-*-sunos5*, which will allways remain correct as has already been indicated, i.e. whatever they happen to call Solaris 10 by the time it's released, the O/S will be SunOS 5.10. But even this sort of change unnecessarily confuses users and creates a maintenance burden on all users of config.{guess, sub}. Rainer -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rainer Orth, Faculty of Technology, Bielefeld University ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-11-20 18:29 ` Rainer Orth @ 2003-11-20 20:31 ` Paul Eggert 2003-11-20 20:35 ` Rainer Orth 2003-11-20 21:33 ` Eric Botcazou 0 siblings, 2 replies; 81+ messages in thread From: Paul Eggert @ 2003-11-20 20:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rainer Orth; +Cc: Ben Elliston, gcc, binutils, gdb, rms Rainer Orth <ro@TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> writes: > suddenly all packages that could handle all versions of Solaris 2 in > the same way (matching *-*-solaris2*) have to handle *-*-solaris2*, > *-*-solaris[789] and *-*-solaris2.1*. How many programs are actually affected here? I just checked Emacs, which I thought would care, and it doesn't; it treats all versions later than Solaris 2.6 with a *-solaris* pattern. Libtool doesn't seem to care either. A few programs do care: I just checked my collection of sources and found GCC, GDB, Kaffe, OpenSSL, and Tcsh. But I don't think it's much of a maintenance burden to update these few examples. I can propose patches myself for each of these, if that would help assuage fears about this change. (If desirable, these patches could be installed now, before config.guess changes, since they would work with both the old and the new config.guess.) > If one really *must* change something for technical correctness, switch to > *-*-sunos5*, Isn't that change even more intrusive? It would require changing the handling of Solaris 2.0 through 2.6 as well. I agree that in retrospect -sunos5* would have been a better name choice. If the consensus is to switch to -sunos5*, then that's OK with me. But it'll be less work right now to adopt the solution proposed in <http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/config/config/NEWS?rev=HEAD&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup>. Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr> writes: > What's the rationale...? It's to avoid unnecessary minor barriers to the use of GNU software on Solaris hosts. config.guess currently uses incorrect version numbers for Solaris, and this needlessly confuses new and potential users and installers of GNU software on Solaris. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-11-20 20:31 ` Paul Eggert @ 2003-11-20 20:35 ` Rainer Orth 2003-11-20 20:50 ` Albert Chin-A-Young 2003-11-20 21:32 ` Paul Eggert 2003-11-20 21:33 ` Eric Botcazou 1 sibling, 2 replies; 81+ messages in thread From: Rainer Orth @ 2003-11-20 20:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paul Eggert; +Cc: Ben Elliston, gcc, binutils, gdb, rms Paul Eggert writes: > How many programs are actually affected here? > > I just checked Emacs, which I thought would care, and it doesn't; it > treats all versions later than Solaris 2.6 with a *-solaris* pattern. > Libtool doesn't seem to care either. A few programs do care: I just > checked my collection of sources and found GCC, GDB, Kaffe, OpenSSL, > and Tcsh. But I don't think it's much of a maintenance burden to > update these few examples. I can propose patches myself for each of > these, if that would help assuage fears about this change. (If > desirable, these patches could be installed now, before config.guess > changes, since they would work with both the old and the new > config.guess.) You've looked at a heavily biased collection: most GNU programs don't care too much about specific O/S versions. Many others do: I've just checked am-utils, ntp, and pidentd, and all of them are affected. It's true that it is possible to propose patches for all of them, but getting them integrated into all affected packages (and I'm very sure much more will pop up if you broaden your search) is a heavy burden on lots of maintainers for no other reason than Sun's marketing `correctness'. I'm usually quite picky about correct naming myself (evidence the proposed sparcv9 -> sparc64 change in config.guess), but I value compatibility considerably higher than this. I consider this one of several completely unnecessary incompatible interface changes that Jörg Schilling so often complains about in comp.unix.solaris ;-( > > If one really *must* change something for technical correctness, switch to > > *-*-sunos5*, > > Isn't that change even more intrusive? It would require changing the > handling of Solaris 2.0 through 2.6 as well. Sure it is, but if you want stay safe from future O/S renaming by Sun marketing, it's the only reasonable way. Your proposed change from *-*-solaris2.7 etc. to *-*-solaris7 etc. will create a massive maintenance burden now and is likely to do so again in the future should Sun decide that Solaris 10 (or 11) will be called something different. Either keeping the status quo (solaris2.x) or switching to sunos5.x protects you from this marketing nonesense. > > What's the rationale...? > > It's to avoid unnecessary minor barriers to the use of GNU software on > Solaris hosts. config.guess currently uses incorrect version numbers > for Solaris, and this needlessly confuses new and potential users and > installers of GNU software on Solaris. As indicated by what? I've never seen such a complaint before, and it's almost never necessary to specify such a configure triplet manually since it's guessed correctly. Rainer ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rainer Orth, Faculty of Technology, Bielefeld University ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-11-20 20:35 ` Rainer Orth @ 2003-11-20 20:50 ` Albert Chin-A-Young 2003-11-20 21:32 ` Paul Eggert 1 sibling, 0 replies; 81+ messages in thread From: Albert Chin-A-Young @ 2003-11-20 20:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc, binutils, gdb, rms On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 08:14:30PM +0100, Rainer Orth wrote: > Paul Eggert writes: > > > What's the rationale...? > > > > It's to avoid unnecessary minor barriers to the use of GNU software on > > Solaris hosts. config.guess currently uses incorrect version numbers > > for Solaris, and this needlessly confuses new and potential users and > > installers of GNU software on Solaris. > > As indicated by what? I've never seen such a complaint before, and it's > almost never necessary to specify such a configure triplet manually since > it's guessed correctly. Scripts that admins have that depend on config.guess to determine the platform name might break. I don't see this change having any value. -- albert chin (china@thewrittenword.com) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-11-20 20:35 ` Rainer Orth 2003-11-20 20:50 ` Albert Chin-A-Young @ 2003-11-20 21:32 ` Paul Eggert 2003-11-20 21:44 ` Rainer Orth 1 sibling, 1 reply; 81+ messages in thread From: Paul Eggert @ 2003-11-20 21:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rainer Orth; +Cc: Ben Elliston, gcc, binutils, gdb, rms Rainer Orth <ro@TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> writes: > Either keeping the status quo (solaris2.x) or switching to sunos5.x > protects you from this marketing nonesense. It'd be OK with me to switch to sunos5.x, if that's the consensus. > > It's to avoid unnecessary minor barriers to the use of GNU software on > > Solaris hosts. > > As indicated by what? I've never seen such a complaint before I was confused myself when the wrong naming convention was originally introduced. I recall seeing other instances of confusion on several occasions. It's hard to do a google search to find instances of this (and I suspect most newbies who get confused figure it out eventually, and don't send email about it), but I just did a quick google search and found the following messages indicating some degree of confusion, or a need to explain it, or whatever. This is the best I can do with a quick search, but I think the problem is a continuing one for Solaris and/or GNU novices. http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-make/2001-08/msg00023.html http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-bugs-list/2002-February/009878.html http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=yecwv93tve5.fsf%40king.cts.com http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=39F5B44B.59267146%40webcom.com http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=200010041042.DAA65166%40king.cts.com > I've just checked am-utils, ntp, and pidentd, and all of them are > affected. No doubt other programs will be affected too. But these programs are a relative handful. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-11-20 21:32 ` Paul Eggert @ 2003-11-20 21:44 ` Rainer Orth 2003-11-21 0:57 ` Paul Eggert 0 siblings, 1 reply; 81+ messages in thread From: Rainer Orth @ 2003-11-20 21:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paul Eggert; +Cc: Ben Elliston, gcc, binutils, gdb, rms Paul Eggert writes: > > I've just checked am-utils, ntp, and pidentd, and all of them are > > affected. > > No doubt other programs will be affected too. But these programs are > a relative handful. This list came up from the first three that came to mind (and that I contributed to at some point). You create work for many maintainers for no value to them whatsoever, only obscuring the configure scripts with handling for solaris2.<x>, solaris<x> and some solaris<n> (or whatever) when Sun comes up with a new name. A continued burden which removes clarity from those scripts, in exchange for a little less newby confusion (who will be confused by SunOS 5.x vs. Solaris 2.x/x anyway). Rainer ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-11-20 21:44 ` Rainer Orth @ 2003-11-21 0:57 ` Paul Eggert 2003-11-21 1:15 ` Rainer Orth 2003-11-23 12:51 ` Richard Stallman 0 siblings, 2 replies; 81+ messages in thread From: Paul Eggert @ 2003-11-21 0:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rainer Orth; +Cc: Ben Elliston, gcc, binutils, gdb, rms Rainer Orth <ro@TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> writes: > A continued burden which removes clarity from those scripts, Using -sunos5* would not remove clarity from scripts, as it's just as clear as -solaris2*. And it would not be a continued burden, as it's just a one-time conversion for a relatively small number of packages. > in exchange for a little less newby confusion It is a tradeoff between maintainer convenience and newbie convenience. The easiest thing for maintainers is to do nothing, and continue to confuse novices in this minor way. (After all, we've invented our own nonstandard jargon that works for us, and if it confuses novices then that's their problem. :-) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-11-21 0:57 ` Paul Eggert @ 2003-11-21 1:15 ` Rainer Orth 2003-11-23 12:51 ` Richard Stallman 1 sibling, 0 replies; 81+ messages in thread From: Rainer Orth @ 2003-11-21 1:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paul Eggert; +Cc: Ben Elliston, gcc, binutils, gdb, rms Paul Eggert writes: > Rainer Orth <ro@TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> writes: > > > A continued burden which removes clarity from those scripts, > > Using -sunos5* would not remove clarity from scripts, as it's just as > clear as -solaris2*. And it would not be a continued burden, as it's My comment was referring to the -solaris2.x/-solaris[789]/-solaris<n> variant, where we are left without a catch-all pattern for Solaris 2. -sunos5* is certainly ok in this respect, but also a massive change over dozens or hundreds of packages for no real gain. > It is a tradeoff between maintainer convenience and newbie convenience. > The easiest thing for maintainers is to do nothing, and continue to > confuse novices in this minor way. (After all, we've invented our own > nonstandard jargon that works for us, and if it confuses novices then > that's their problem. :-) Exactly: apart from the minor confusion (which is already there by the SunOS 5 vs. Solaris 2 vs. Solaris 7/8/9/10 mess), no harm is done by sticking to the established convention of using solaris2* instead of sunos5*. The bad choice to use solaris2* instead of sunos5* (where Sun had already created lots of confusion by re-branding SunOS 4.1.1B to Solaris 1.0) as config.guess output had been made early in the history of Solaris 2, and this whole discussion clearly suggest that we stick with that (admittedly bad) choice since compatibility is considerably more important than following marketing inventions. Rainer ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-11-21 0:57 ` Paul Eggert 2003-11-21 1:15 ` Rainer Orth @ 2003-11-23 12:51 ` Richard Stallman 2003-11-23 23:40 ` Branko Čibej 1 sibling, 1 reply; 81+ messages in thread From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-11-23 12:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paul Eggert; +Cc: ro, bje, gcc, binutils, gdb It seems to me that we should make the change. Referring to system versions by the same numbers that the publisher uses is a good idea in general. It will take a fairly small amount of work to adapt a bounded set of GNU packages to this change. So we may as well do it. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-11-23 12:51 ` Richard Stallman @ 2003-11-23 23:40 ` Branko Čibej 2003-11-24 8:17 ` Paul Eggert 2003-11-25 10:07 ` Richard Stallman 0 siblings, 2 replies; 81+ messages in thread From: Branko Čibej @ 2003-11-23 23:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: rms; +Cc: Paul Eggert, ro, bje, gcc, binutils, gdb Richard Stallman wrote: >It seems to me that we should make the change. >Referring to system versions by the same numbers that >the publisher uses is a good idea in general. >It will take a fairly small amount of work to adapt >a bounded set of GNU packages to this change. >So we may as well do it. > > What about the thousands of non-GNU packages that use config.guess? -- Brane Äibej <brane@xbc.nu> http://www.xbc.nu/brane/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-11-23 23:40 ` Branko Čibej @ 2003-11-24 8:17 ` Paul Eggert 2003-11-24 8:28 ` Eric Botcazou 2003-11-25 10:07 ` Richard Stallman 1 sibling, 1 reply; 81+ messages in thread From: Paul Eggert @ 2003-11-24 8:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: config-patches; +Cc: rms, ro, bje, gcc, binutils, gdb, brane <brane@xbc.nu> writes: > What about the thousands of non-GNU packages that use config.guess? Most of them won't care one way or another, for the same reason that only a tiny fraction of GNU programs care. Obviously there are both pros and cons to changing config.guess to use correct Sun version numbers. The people who will be hassled by the correction (namely, a handful of maintainers) are more likely to complain about it, while the people who will benefit from the correction (e.g., newbie installers) don't know what's happening and we won't hear from them here. (If the American Congress were to vote on this issue, the handful of special interests would win hands down. Sigh. :-) ro didn't favor the proposed change, but suggested that if we change it, we should standardize on -sunos uniformly, and use e.g., -sunos5.9 rather than -solaris9. That's fine with me, and in fact it's a bit cleaner. It may cause a bit more work since it renames -solaris2.0 through -solaris2.6 too, but these OSes are obsolete as Sun no longer issues patches for them, so it's not a big deal these days. Here's a patch to do it that way, if you prefer. 2003-11-24 Paul Eggert <eggert@twinsun.com> Standardize on -sunos* for SunOS versions, rather than using -sunos* for older versions and (incorrectly-numbered) -solaris* for newer versions. * config.guess (sun4H:SunOS:5.*:*, sun4*:SunOS:5.*:*, tadpole*:SunOS:5.*:*, i86pc:SunOS:5.*:*, prep*:SunOS:5.*:*): Guess -sunosN instead of -solarisM, as we are standardizing on -sunos for SunOS hosts. * config.sub (i*86sol2, sun4sol2, -solaris*): Likewise. (-solaris, -sunos5*): Remove cases. (-solaris2, -solaris2.*, -solaris[789], -solaris[789].*, -solaris[1-9][0-9]*, -sunos*): New cases. * config.guess (sun4*:SunOS:6*:*): Remove case: There never will be a "Solaris 3". * config.sub (-sunos6*): Likewise. cvs server: Diffing . Index: config.guess =================================================================== RCS file: /cvsroot/config/config/config.guess,v retrieving revision 1.287 diff -p -u -r1.287 config.guess --- config.guess 20 Nov 2003 09:20:24 -0000 1.287 +++ config.guess 24 Nov 2003 06:24:46 -0000 @@ -338,19 +338,17 @@ case "${UNAME_MACHINE}:${UNAME_SYSTEM}:$ sparc) echo sparc-icl-nx7 && exit 0 ;; esac ;; sun4H:SunOS:5.*:*) - echo sparc-hal-solaris2`echo ${UNAME_RELEASE}|sed -e 's/[^.]*//'` + echo sparc-hal-sunos${UNAME_RELEASE} exit 0 ;; + # Previous versions of config.guess incorrectly identified Solaris 7 + # as solaris2.7, and similarly for Solaris 8 and Solaris 9. + # config.guess now identifies these OSes by SunOS version, e.g., + # sparc-sun-sunos5.9 instead of the incorrect sparc-sun-solaris2.9. sun4*:SunOS:5.*:* | tadpole*:SunOS:5.*:*) - echo sparc-sun-solaris2`echo ${UNAME_RELEASE}|sed -e 's/[^.]*//'` + echo sparc-sun-sunos${UNAME_RELEASE} exit 0 ;; i86pc:SunOS:5.*:*) - echo i386-pc-solaris2`echo ${UNAME_RELEASE}|sed -e 's/[^.]*//'` - exit 0 ;; - sun4*:SunOS:6*:*) - # According to config.sub, this is the proper way to canonicalize - # SunOS6. Hard to guess exactly what SunOS6 will be like, but - # it's likely to be more like Solaris than SunOS4. - echo sparc-sun-solaris3`echo ${UNAME_RELEASE}|sed -e 's/[^.]*//'` + echo i386-pc-sunos${UNAME_RELEASE} exit 0 ;; sun4*:SunOS:*:*) case "`/usr/bin/arch -k`" in @@ -807,7 +805,7 @@ EOF echo powerpcle-unknown-cygwin exit 0 ;; prep*:SunOS:5.*:*) - echo powerpcle-unknown-solaris2`echo ${UNAME_RELEASE}|sed -e 's/[^.]*//'` + echo powerpcle-unknown-sunos${UNAME_RELEASE} exit 0 ;; *:GNU:*:*) # the GNU system Index: config.sub =================================================================== RCS file: /cvsroot/config/config/config.sub,v retrieving revision 1.297 diff -p -u -r1.297 config.sub --- config.sub 20 Nov 2003 09:20:24 -0000 1.297 +++ config.sub 24 Nov 2003 06:24:48 -0000 @@ -593,7 +593,7 @@ case $basic_machine in ;; i*86sol2) basic_machine=`echo $1 | sed -e 's/86.*/86-pc/'` - os=-solaris2 + os=-sunos5 ;; i386mach) basic_machine=i386-mach @@ -916,7 +916,7 @@ case $basic_machine in ;; sun4sol2) basic_machine=sparc-sun - os=-solaris2 + os=-sunos5 ;; sun3 | sun3-*) basic_machine=m68k-sun @@ -1113,12 +1113,17 @@ then case $os in # First match some system type aliases # that might get confused with valid system types. - # -solaris* is a basic system type, with this one exception. -solaris1 | -solaris1.*) os=`echo $os | sed -e 's|solaris1|sunos4|'` ;; - -solaris) - os=-solaris2 + -solaris2 | -solaris2.*) + os=`echo "$os" | sed -e 's|solaris2|sunos5|'` + ;; + -solaris[789] | -solaris[789].* | -solaris[1-9][0-9]*) + os=`echo "$os" | sed -e 's|solaris|sunos5.|'` + ;; + -solaris*) + os=-sunos5 ;; -svr4*) os=-sysv4 @@ -1135,7 +1140,7 @@ case $os in # -sysv* is not here because it comes later, after sysvr4. -gnu* | -bsd* | -mach* | -minix* | -genix* | -ultrix* | -irix* \ | -*vms* | -sco* | -esix* | -isc* | -aix* | -sunos | -sunos[34]*\ - | -hpux* | -unos* | -osf* | -luna* | -dgux* | -solaris* | -sym* \ + | -hpux* | -unos* | -osf* | -luna* | -dgux* | -sunos* | -sym* \ | -amigaos* | -amigados* | -msdos* | -newsos* | -unicos* | -aof* \ | -aos* \ | -nindy* | -vxsim* | -vxworks* | -ebmon* | -hms* | -mvs* \ @@ -1181,12 +1186,6 @@ case $os in ;; -linux*) os=`echo $os | sed -e 's|linux|linux-gnu|'` - ;; - -sunos5*) - os=`echo $os | sed -e 's|sunos5|solaris2|'` - ;; - -sunos6*) - os=`echo $os | sed -e 's|sunos6|solaris3|'` ;; -opened*) os=-openedition ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-11-24 8:17 ` Paul Eggert @ 2003-11-24 8:28 ` Eric Botcazou 2003-11-24 12:08 ` Paul Eggert 0 siblings, 1 reply; 81+ messages in thread From: Eric Botcazou @ 2003-11-24 8:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paul Eggert; +Cc: config-patches, rms, ro, bje, gcc, binutils, gdb, brane > Most of them won't care one way or another, for the same reason that > only a tiny fraction of GNU programs care. Do you have any numbers backing this statement? > Obviously there are both pros and cons to changing config.guess to use > correct Sun version numbers. The people who will be hassled by the > correction (namely, a handful of maintainers) are more likely to > complain about it, while the people who will benefit from the > correction (e.g., newbie installers) don't know what's happening and > we won't hear from them here. I tend to think that people compiling sources on Solaris boxes are not newbies. > (If the American Congress were to vote on this issue, the handful of > special interests would win hands down. Sigh. :-) I'd rather say: classical tension between experts in a field and the non-expert public. The experts' opinion may sometimes be valuable :-) > ro didn't favor the proposed change, but suggested that if we change > it, we should standardize on -sunos uniformly, and use e.g., -sunos5.9 > rather than -solaris9. That's fine with me, and in fact it's a bit > cleaner. But is only marginally clearer for so-called newbies. And in the GCC tree, for example, all SunOS-specific files are named sol2*. -- Eric Botcazou ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-11-24 8:28 ` Eric Botcazou @ 2003-11-24 12:08 ` Paul Eggert 2003-11-24 14:35 ` Eric Botcazou 0 siblings, 1 reply; 81+ messages in thread From: Paul Eggert @ 2003-11-24 12:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eric Botcazou; +Cc: config-patches, rms, ro, bje, gcc, binutils, gdb, brane Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr> writes: > > Most of them won't care one way or another, for the same reason that > > only a tiny fraction of GNU programs care. > > Do you have any numbers backing this statement? Only the numbers mentioned on this thread. I think about 10 programs have been mentioned as being affected by this change, most of which are not GNU programs. The vast majority of programs don't care about this stuff, as far as I can tell. > I tend to think that people compiling sources on Solaris boxes are not > newbies. Hmm, well, I currently have 60 students compiling sources on Solaris boxes. They're all Solaris newbies. Just one data point, I know, but there are still a reasonable number of Solaris newbies out there. (I've asked the school to switch to GNU/Linux; but for various reasons it probably won't happen any time soon.) > In the GCC tree, for example, all SunOS-specific files are named > sol2*. Not all SunOS-specific files in GCC are named sol2*. Only files specific to SunOS 5.0 and later have that name. Other files have sunos4* names and suchlike. This is an example of naming confusion within GCC, but I don't propose to change all that right now. (One step at a time.) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-11-24 12:08 ` Paul Eggert @ 2003-11-24 14:35 ` Eric Botcazou 2003-11-24 21:54 ` Paul Eggert 0 siblings, 1 reply; 81+ messages in thread From: Eric Botcazou @ 2003-11-24 14:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paul Eggert; +Cc: config-patches, rms, ro, bje, gcc, binutils, gdb, brane > Only the numbers mentioned on this thread. I think about 10 programs > have been mentioned as being affected by this change, most of which > are not GNU programs. Are you sure they are the only ones? > Hmm, well, I currently have 60 students compiling sources on Solaris > boxes. They're all Solaris newbies. Did they run into the 'minor barrier'? > Not all SunOS-specific files in GCC are named sol2*. Only files > specific to SunOS 5.0 and later have that name. Other files have > sunos4* names and suchlike. I don't see any in the mainline sources. -- Eric Botcazou ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-11-24 14:35 ` Eric Botcazou @ 2003-11-24 21:54 ` Paul Eggert 2003-11-25 10:47 ` Eric Botcazou 0 siblings, 1 reply; 81+ messages in thread From: Paul Eggert @ 2003-11-24 21:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eric Botcazou; +Cc: config-patches, rms, ro, bje, gcc, binutils, gdb, brane Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr> writes: > > Only the numbers mentioned on this thread. I think about 10 programs > > have been mentioned as being affected by this change, most of which > > are not GNU programs. > > Are you sure they are the only ones? No: on the contrary, I expect that there are a few more. However, it's still the case that only a very small number of programs are affected, compared to the hundreds (or thousands?) of programs that use config.guess and config.sub. > > Hmm, well, I currently have 60 students compiling sources on Solaris > > boxes. They're all Solaris newbies. > > Did they run into the 'minor barrier'? Not this academic quarter; they're using Python, which isn't affected. However, in past quarters I have had them build GCC, so they were affected. (Others in my department think I'm crazy to have undergraduates look inside GCC; they prefer to teach with toy compilers. But I digress....) > > Not all SunOS-specific files in GCC are named sol2*. Only files > > specific to SunOS 5.0 and later have that name. Other files have > > sunos4* names and suchlike. > > I don't see any in the mainline sources. Ah, OK, you must be referring to the current CVS, which has ripped out support for SunOS 4 and earlier. I was referring to the latest stable version, GCC 3.3.2, which still has some files with sunos4* names. But at any rate this discrepancy is a minor one, as I'm not proposing to rename all those files right now. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-11-24 21:54 ` Paul Eggert @ 2003-11-25 10:47 ` Eric Botcazou 2003-11-25 23:12 ` Paul Eggert 0 siblings, 1 reply; 81+ messages in thread From: Eric Botcazou @ 2003-11-25 10:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paul Eggert; +Cc: config-patches, rms, ro, bje, gcc, binutils, gdb, brane > No: on the contrary, I expect that there are a few more. However, > it's still the case that only a very small number of programs are > affected, compared to the hundreds (or thousands?) of programs that > use config.guess and config.sub. Forgive my insistence, but without real numbers one could still argue that this is only a piece of wishful thinking. Moreover, I think you didn't really take into account the additional burden this would place on the shoulders of maintainers. I can speak for the GCC side: Solaris is a pain to support, period. You can't simply say: upgrade binutils, don't use this Bash version and so on. No, you have to cope with all the glitches of the shells, the assembler, the linker, the headers, the libraries, etc. So please, please, please, don't gratuitously add another layer of difficulties on top of this mess. > Not this academic quarter; they're using Python, which isn't affected. > However, in past quarters I have had them build GCC, so they were > affected. But were they really affected? I mean, beyond scratching their head for 2 minutes after seeing the triplet. > Ah, OK, you must be referring to the current CVS, which has ripped out > support for SunOS 4 and earlier. I was referring to the latest stable > version, GCC 3.3.2, which still has some files with sunos4* names. Yes. Only SunOS 5.x will be supported in GCC 3.4. > But at any rate this discrepancy is a minor one, as I'm not proposing > to rename all those files right now. It was just to point out that it would IMHO be inconsistent to get rid of the Solaris moniker, now that GCC only supports Solaris. -- Eric Botcazou ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-11-25 10:47 ` Eric Botcazou @ 2003-11-25 23:12 ` Paul Eggert 2003-11-26 6:05 ` Eric Botcazou 2003-11-26 12:05 ` Ben Elliston 0 siblings, 2 replies; 81+ messages in thread From: Paul Eggert @ 2003-11-25 23:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eric Botcazou; +Cc: config-patches, rms, ro, bje, gcc, binutils, gdb, brane Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr> writes: > without real numbers one could still argue that this is only a piece > of wishful thinking. It might be helpful to have more numbers, but I don't think they would affect the conclusion that only a tiny fraction of programs are affected, and the fixes will be relatively easy. > I think you didn't really take into account the additional burden > this would place on the shoulders of maintainers. I can speak for > the GCC side: Solaris is a pain to support, period. Yes, I understand that. I occasionally have helped with GCC support on Solaris. I have volunteered to compose a patch for GCC, if that would help reassure you. > > However, in past quarters I have had them build GCC, so they were > > affected. > > But were they really affected? I mean, beyond scratching their head for 2 > minutes after seeing the triplet. 2 minutes times 90 students is three hours. And that's just one class in one quarter at one university. After a while it starts to add up. We want to encourage newbies, not confuse them. > it would IMHO be inconsistent to get rid of the Solaris moniker, now > that GCC only supports Solaris. A more drastic change to GCC's support for Solaris/SunOS, that changes most instances of 'Solaris' to 'SunOS', would also work (though it'd take a bit more time to write). If you'd prefer such a solution I could propose one along those lines instead. (Obviously I shouldn't bother doing any of this unless config.guess/config.sub are changed.) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-11-25 23:12 ` Paul Eggert @ 2003-11-26 6:05 ` Eric Botcazou 2003-11-26 12:05 ` Ben Elliston 1 sibling, 0 replies; 81+ messages in thread From: Eric Botcazou @ 2003-11-26 6:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paul Eggert; +Cc: config-patches, rms, ro, bje, gcc, binutils, gdb, brane > 2 minutes times 90 students is three hours. And that's just one class > in one quarter at one university. After a while it starts to add up. Weird calculation. It's still 2 minutes per brain. > A more drastic change to GCC's support for Solaris/SunOS, that changes > most instances of 'Solaris' to 'SunOS', would also work (though it'd > take a bit more time to write). If you'd prefer such a solution I > could propose one along those lines instead. (Obviously I shouldn't > bother doing any of this unless config.guess/config.sub are changed.) Oh! no, I'd strongly prefer keeping the current situation. And pointing to the aforementioned FAQ instead. -- Eric Botcazou ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-11-25 23:12 ` Paul Eggert 2003-11-26 6:05 ` Eric Botcazou @ 2003-11-26 12:05 ` Ben Elliston 2003-11-27 1:58 ` Russ Allbery 1 sibling, 1 reply; 81+ messages in thread From: Ben Elliston @ 2003-11-26 12:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paul Eggert Cc: Eric Botcazou, config-patches, rms, ro, gcc, binutils, gdb, brane Paul Eggert <eggert@CS.UCLA.EDU> writes: > > But were they really affected? I mean, beyond scratching their head for 2 > > minutes after seeing the triplet. > > 2 minutes times 90 students is three hours. And that's just one > class in one quarter at one university. After a while it starts to > add up. We want to encourage newbies, not confuse them. Yes, but the job is perfectly parallelised :-) My opinion (if it matters) is that we should choose a triplet that insulates us from marketing types at Sun. sunos5.x seems like a reasonable choice, but I understand the the change is going to be really problematic. Please keep in mind that I know of system administrators who use config.guess to help set up paths when users log in. Thus, they have /usr/local/i686-pc-linux-gnu/ etc. and a change to config.guess' output will cause them a bit of grief. Ben ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-11-26 12:05 ` Ben Elliston @ 2003-11-27 1:58 ` Russ Allbery 0 siblings, 0 replies; 81+ messages in thread From: Russ Allbery @ 2003-11-27 1:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: config-patches, gcc, binutils, gdb Ben Elliston <bje@wasabisystems.com> writes: > My opinion (if it matters) is that we should choose a triplet that > insulates us from marketing types at Sun. sunos5.x seems like a > reasonable choice, but I understand the the change is going to be really > problematic. While this sounds like a good idea to those of us deeply in the know and familiar with the past ten years of Sun operating system history and marketing idiocies, I think the average newcomer, who is mystified by uname output, is going to be really confused by sunos5.x. uname output is pretty much the only place that's used that the average Solaris user would see it, and the term "SunOS" is used in the literature and in on-line discussion pretty much exclusively to refer to SunOS 4.x. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-11-23 23:40 ` Branko Čibej 2003-11-24 8:17 ` Paul Eggert @ 2003-11-25 10:07 ` Richard Stallman 2003-11-26 3:49 ` Zack Weinberg 1 sibling, 1 reply; 81+ messages in thread From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-11-25 10:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Branko Čibej; +Cc: eggert, ro, bje, gcc, binutils, gdb >It seems to me that we should make the change. >Referring to system versions by the same numbers that >the publisher uses is a good idea in general. >It will take a fairly small amount of work to adapt >a bounded set of GNU packages to this change. >So we may as well do it. > > What about the thousands of non-GNU packages that use config.guess? It's the same basic idea. We never made a commitment to avoid ever having an incompatible change. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-11-25 10:07 ` Richard Stallman @ 2003-11-26 3:49 ` Zack Weinberg 0 siblings, 0 replies; 81+ messages in thread From: Zack Weinberg @ 2003-11-26 3:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: rms; +Cc: Branko Čibej, eggert, ro, bje, gcc, binutils, gdb Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes: > >It seems to me that we should make the change. > >Referring to system versions by the same numbers that > >the publisher uses is a good idea in general. > >It will take a fairly small amount of work to adapt > >a bounded set of GNU packages to this change. > >So we may as well do it. > > > > > What about the thousands of non-GNU packages that use config.guess? > > It's the same basic idea. We never made a commitment to avoid > ever having an incompatible change. I think there's an expectation, though, since incompatible changes have not happened before (at least, I cannot think of any previous incident). I am with Eric on this: config.guess should not change its output in an incompatible fashion. Ever. config.sub should certainly recognize -solaris7+ as equivalent to -solaris2.7+. zw ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-11-20 20:31 ` Paul Eggert 2003-11-20 20:35 ` Rainer Orth @ 2003-11-20 21:33 ` Eric Botcazou 2003-11-20 21:40 ` Rainer Orth 1 sibling, 1 reply; 81+ messages in thread From: Eric Botcazou @ 2003-11-20 21:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paul Eggert; +Cc: Rainer Orth, Ben Elliston, gcc, binutils, gdb, rms > It's to avoid unnecessary minor barriers to the use of GNU software on > Solaris hosts. config.guess currently uses incorrect version numbers > for Solaris, and this needlessly confuses new and potential users and > installers of GNU software on Solaris. What's the point in exchanging a minor barrier for a major maintainance problem? -- Eric Botcazou ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-11-20 21:33 ` Eric Botcazou @ 2003-11-20 21:40 ` Rainer Orth 2003-11-20 23:32 ` Phil Edwards 0 siblings, 1 reply; 81+ messages in thread From: Rainer Orth @ 2003-11-20 21:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eric Botcazou; +Cc: Paul Eggert, Ben Elliston, gcc, binutils, gdb, rms Eric Botcazou writes: > What's the point in exchanging a minor barrier for a major maintainance > problem? Exactly: all messages Paul came up with were from users wondering about the discrepancy between their knowledge of the O/S version and the config.guess output. The same kind of confusion comes up regularly between SunOS 5.x and Solaris 2.x/Solaris x, and is resolved as soon as it is explained (usually by pointing people at the Solaris 2 FAQ). In all cases, the guess achieved exactly what was desired, no user had tried to specify e.g. sparc-sun-solaris8 (which is unnecessary except in the most extraordinary circumstances) and failed. So what we have works perfectly well and will continue to do so, while a change is only of cosmetic value (and the *-*-solaris[789], *-*-solaris1? route is at the continued mercy of Sun marketing droids). This is a sure way to anger lots of maintainers for no obvious value. Rainer ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-11-20 21:40 ` Rainer Orth @ 2003-11-20 23:32 ` Phil Edwards 0 siblings, 0 replies; 81+ messages in thread From: Phil Edwards @ 2003-11-20 23:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rainer Orth Cc: Eric Botcazou, Paul Eggert, Ben Elliston, gcc, binutils, gdb, rms On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 10:14:47PM +0100, Rainer Orth wrote: > Eric Botcazou writes: > > > What's the point in exchanging a minor barrier for a major maintainance > > problem? > > Exactly: all messages Paul came up with were from users wondering about the > discrepancy between their knowledge of the O/S version and the config.guess > output. The same kind of confusion comes up regularly between SunOS 5.x > and Solaris 2.x/Solaris x, and is resolved as soon as it is explained > (usually by pointing people at the Solaris 2 FAQ). As a longtime user and administrator of Solaris boxes, I strongly agree. The weirdness is a complete marketing tactic with little technical merit, and is easily understood by pointing new users at Casper Dik's Solaris 2 FAQ. This change is unneeded, will create confusion, and gets us no benefit in exchange for even more work. Increasing the maintanence hassle for Free Software authors is hardly a solution to new user's confusion. -- Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it. - Brian W. Kernighan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-11-20 12:25 flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} Ben Elliston ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2003-11-20 18:29 ` Rainer Orth @ 2003-11-21 23:56 ` tm_gccmail 2003-11-22 0:01 ` Joe Buck 2003-11-27 18:55 ` Zack Weinberg 4 siblings, 1 reply; 81+ messages in thread From: tm_gccmail @ 2003-11-21 23:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ben Elliston; +Cc: gcc, binutils, gdb, rms, eggert On 20 Nov 2003, Ben Elliston wrote: > Paul Eggert has been asking over the course of the last year when > config.{guess,sub} will start to correctly identify Solaris version > numbers. The problem is that config.guess misidentifies Solaris 7, 8, > and 9, and it will probably misidentify Solaris 10 (unless Sun > marketing changes Solaris names again). For example, on a Solaris 8 > box, config.guess outputs "sparc-sun-solaris2.8"; but there never was > and never will be a "Solaris 2.8", as Solaris 2.6 (SunOS 5.6) was > immediately followed by Solaris 7 (SunOS 5.7). Doesn't uname identify the OS as "SunOS 5.x" ? If so, I don't see a real reason for this change. Toshi ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-11-21 23:56 ` tm_gccmail @ 2003-11-22 0:01 ` Joe Buck 0 siblings, 0 replies; 81+ messages in thread From: Joe Buck @ 2003-11-22 0:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: tm_gccmail; +Cc: Ben Elliston, gcc, binutils, gdb, rms, eggert On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 01:28:13PM -0800, tm_gccmail@kloo.net wrote: > Doesn't uname identify the OS as "SunOS 5.x" ? Yes, for Solaris 8 we get, for example, SunOS capulet 5.8 Generic_108528-15 sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-4 However, Sun has never used "Solaris 2.8" to identify such systems. > If so, I don't see a real reason for this change. I think that we should just document the current behavior and move on. It can be confusing, but there are higher priority issues. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-11-20 12:25 flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} Ben Elliston ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 2003-11-21 23:56 ` tm_gccmail @ 2003-11-27 18:55 ` Zack Weinberg 2003-11-29 1:42 ` Paul Eggert 4 siblings, 1 reply; 81+ messages in thread From: Zack Weinberg @ 2003-11-27 18:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ben Elliston; +Cc: gcc, binutils, gdb, rms, eggert Ben Elliston <bje@wasabisystems.com> writes: > Paul Eggert has been asking over the course of the last year when > config.{guess,sub} will start to correctly identify Solaris version > numbers. The problem is that config.guess misidentifies Solaris 7, 8, > and 9, and it will probably misidentify Solaris 10 (unless Sun > marketing changes Solaris names again). For example, on a Solaris 8 > box, config.guess outputs "sparc-sun-solaris2.8"; but there never was > and never will be a "Solaris 2.8", as Solaris 2.6 (SunOS 5.6) was > immediately followed by Solaris 7 (SunOS 5.7). I'm reiterating what I said way downthread in a more prominent location because (a) it is buried, and (b) having reflected for 24 hours I now feel much more strongly about the issue. THE OUTPUT OF CONFIG.GUESS MUST NOT EVER CHANGE. EVEN IF IT IS WRONG. It is, however, perfectly fine and in fact desirable for config.sub to recognize sparc-solaris7 as equivalent to sparc-sun-solaris2.7. zw ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-11-27 18:55 ` Zack Weinberg @ 2003-11-29 1:42 ` Paul Eggert 2003-11-29 2:24 ` Zack Weinberg 0 siblings, 1 reply; 81+ messages in thread From: Paul Eggert @ 2003-11-29 1:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zack Weinberg; +Cc: Ben Elliston, gcc, binutils, gdb, rms "Zack Weinberg" <zack@codesourcery.com> writes: > THE OUTPUT OF CONFIG.GUESS MUST NOT EVER CHANGE. > EVEN IF IT IS WRONG. It isn't reasonable to insist on this as an absolute policy. If this policy were strictly adhered to, most of the changes to config.guess would be disallowed, as config.guess typically outputs something wrong on unusual hosts. People make mistakes. Systems change. The output of config.guess has changed in the past, and it will change in the future. The very name "config.guess" suggests that its output should not be considered to be unchanging truth. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-11-29 1:42 ` Paul Eggert @ 2003-11-29 2:24 ` Zack Weinberg 2003-12-01 21:29 ` Paul Eggert 0 siblings, 1 reply; 81+ messages in thread From: Zack Weinberg @ 2003-11-29 2:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paul Eggert; +Cc: Ben Elliston, gcc, binutils, gdb, rms Paul Eggert <eggert@CS.UCLA.EDU> writes: > "Zack Weinberg" <zack@codesourcery.com> writes: > >> THE OUTPUT OF CONFIG.GUESS MUST NOT EVER CHANGE. >> EVEN IF IT IS WRONG. > > It isn't reasonable to insist on this as an absolute policy. If this > policy were strictly adhered to, most of the changes to config.guess > would be disallowed, as config.guess typically outputs something wrong > on unusual hosts. Possibly I should have phrased it differently. Referring only to config.guess gives a misleading impression. This isn't about bugs in config.guess/config.sub (which I limit to "conflates two different systems" and "prints something that doesn't have the form of a canonical system name"). This is about canonical system names, which must be stable even if the stable name isn't ideal. Once a canonical name has been chosen for a given operating system, that canonical name must not ever change. Once a pattern of canonical names has been chosen for a given family of operating systems, that pattern must not ever change. Do otherwise and you ruin the utility of canonical system names; we might as well all hand-parse uname -a output. zw ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-11-29 2:24 ` Zack Weinberg @ 2003-12-01 21:29 ` Paul Eggert 2003-12-01 22:09 ` Zack Weinberg 0 siblings, 1 reply; 81+ messages in thread From: Paul Eggert @ 2003-12-01 21:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zack Weinberg; +Cc: Ben Elliston, gcc, binutils, gdb, rms "Zack Weinberg" <zack@codesourcery.com> writes: > Once a pattern of canonical names has been chosen for a given family > of operating systems, that pattern must not ever change. That's still too strong. Changing canonical names is not something one wants to do lightly of course, but it's not unprecedented. We have changed the output of config.guess in the past, notably for GNU/Linux. That being said, I'm sympathetic to the design principle you're advocating. Ironically, this whole problem occurred because we didn't follow that principle: we changed the pattern of canonical names for part of the SunOS family of operating systems from -sunos* to -solaris*. My most recent proposal switches back to -sunos* uniformly, thus adhering to your design principle even more strongly than the current config.guess does. > Do otherwise and you ruin the utility of canonical system names No, the utility is still there. config.guess is a registry for canonical system names, much as ISO 639 is a registry for 2-letter language codes and ISO 3166 is a registry for 2-letter country codes, All other things being equal we shouldn't change names in a registry. But those registries occasionally change too (e.g., ISO 639 changed Hebrew from "iw" to "he", and this year ISO 3166 changed Serbia & Montenegro from "yu" to "cs"). This is a pain for such widely-used standards, but sometimes the advantages of the change outweigh the disadvantages. Similarly for config.guess. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-12-01 21:29 ` Paul Eggert @ 2003-12-01 22:09 ` Zack Weinberg 2003-12-02 21:40 ` Paul Eggert 0 siblings, 1 reply; 81+ messages in thread From: Zack Weinberg @ 2003-12-01 22:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paul Eggert; +Cc: Ben Elliston, gcc, binutils, gdb, rms Paul Eggert <eggert@CS.UCLA.EDU> writes: > "Zack Weinberg" <zack@codesourcery.com> writes: > >> Once a pattern of canonical names has been chosen for a given family >> of operating systems, that pattern must not ever change. > > That's still too strong. Changing canonical names is not something > one wants to do lightly of course, but it's not unprecedented. We > have changed the output of config.guess in the past, notably for > GNU/Linux. I would argue that every last one of those changes was a mistake, but a mistake that cannot now be rectified. > That being said, I'm sympathetic to the design principle you're > advocating. Ironically, this whole problem occurred because we didn't > follow that principle: we changed the pattern of canonical names for > part of the SunOS family of operating systems from -sunos* to > -solaris*. Again, this was a mistake, which *cannot now be rectified*. Changing it again would be *worse* than the original change was - the original change happened when solaris2 was still a new thing, not widely used, and (critically) CPU-sun-solaris2.x / CPU-sun-sunos5.x patterns did not appear in a large number of autoconf scripts. My point is really that you and others advocating the change seem to underestimate the disruption involved by orders of magnitude. I think it's roughly comparable to the disruption involved in the switch from autoconf 2.13 to autoconf 2.5x -- every last configure script on the planet is going to have to be audited for problems, and possibly modified. And configure scripts aren't the only things that use config.guess/ config.sub. Consider FTP archives and automatic programs that retrieve files from those archives. Consider system administrators using cfengine to manage large heterogeneous networks. Consider old backup tapes labelled and formatted according to canonical system name. Is smoothing out a minor irregularity of naming convention really worth all this disruption? zw ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-12-01 22:09 ` Zack Weinberg @ 2003-12-02 21:40 ` Paul Eggert 2003-12-02 21:45 ` Zack Weinberg 0 siblings, 1 reply; 81+ messages in thread From: Paul Eggert @ 2003-12-02 21:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ben Elliston; +Cc: Zack Weinberg, gcc, binutils, gdb, rms "Zack Weinberg" <zack@codesourcery.com> writes: > I think it's roughly comparable to the disruption involved in the > switch from autoconf 2.13 to autoconf 2.5x -- every last configure > script on the planet is going to have to be audited for problems, This overstates the amount of work that will need to be done, as the vast majority of configure scripts will not be affected by this change, whereas the switch from Autoconf 2.13 to 2.5x required changes to most configure.in files. I sense that we're not making much progress in the discussion any more. Ben, what's your thought on this matter now? Are you still inclined to make the change, or would you rather fork config.guess and config.sub, or look for some other compromise, or what? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-12-02 21:40 ` Paul Eggert @ 2003-12-02 21:45 ` Zack Weinberg 2003-12-02 22:21 ` Ben Elliston 2003-12-03 17:22 ` Richard Stallman 0 siblings, 2 replies; 81+ messages in thread From: Zack Weinberg @ 2003-12-02 21:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paul Eggert; +Cc: Ben Elliston, gcc, binutils, gdb, rms Paul Eggert <eggert@CS.UCLA.EDU> writes: > "Zack Weinberg" <zack@codesourcery.com> writes: > >> I think it's roughly comparable to the disruption involved in the >> switch from autoconf 2.13 to autoconf 2.5x -- every last configure >> script on the planet is going to have to be audited for problems, > > This overstates the amount of work that will need to be done, as the > vast majority of configure scripts will not be affected by this change, > whereas the switch from Autoconf 2.13 to 2.5x required changes to most > configure.in files. The burden is on you to prove that - in the absence of evidence we must assume that most or all configure scripts *will* have to be modified; certainly they will all have to be *examined*, which is a nontrivial amount of work in itself. And you completely ignored the issue of non-autoconf users of config.sub/guess. zw ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-12-02 21:45 ` Zack Weinberg @ 2003-12-02 22:21 ` Ben Elliston 2003-12-03 17:22 ` Richard Stallman 1 sibling, 0 replies; 81+ messages in thread From: Ben Elliston @ 2003-12-02 22:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zack Weinberg; +Cc: Paul Eggert, gcc, binutils, gdb, rms "Zack Weinberg" <zack@codesourcery.com> writes: > > This overstates the amount of work that will need to be done, as the > > vast majority of configure scripts will not be affected by this change, > > whereas the switch from Autoconf 2.13 to 2.5x required changes to most > > configure.in files. > > The burden is on you to prove that - in the absence of evidence we > must assume that most or all configure scripts *will* have to be > modified; certainly they will all have to be *examined*, which is a > nontrivial amount of work in itself. And you completely ignored the > issue of non-autoconf users of config.sub/guess. Rather than hypothesise, I took a look at the binutils and gcc trees to get a handle on how frequently configure.in inspects host/target triplets for "solaris". The results are not that surprising. src/rda/unix/configure.in: *solaris*) src/rda/unix/configure.in: TARGET_MODULES="solaris-target.o dummy-target.o" src/rda/unix/configure.in: *solaris*) src/expect/configure.in: *-*-solaris*) stty_reads_stdout=0 ;; src/expect/configure.in:solaris=0 src/expect/configure.in: *-*-solaris*) solaris=1;; src/expect/configure.in:if test $solaris -eq 1 ; then src/gas/configure.in: i386-*-solaris*) fmt=elf ;; src/gas/configure.in: ppc-*-solaris*) fmt=elf src/gas/configure.in: sparc-*-solaris*) fmt=elf ;; src/gas/configure.in: *-*-elf | *-*-sysv4* | *-*-solaris*) fmt=elf dev=yes ;; src/gdb/gdbtk/plugins/configure.in:# Only supported/tested on linux, solaris, cygwin src/gdb/gdbtk/plugins/configure.in: *solaris*) ;; src/gdb/configure.in: solaris2.[[78]]) src/gdb/configure.in: *-*-solaris2.[[678]]) src/gdb/configure.in: solaris*) src/blt/configure.in: *-solaris2*) src/sid/component/audio/configure.in:*-solaris*) src/sim/configure.in: powerpc*-*-eabi* | powerpc*-*-solaris* | powerpc*-*-sysv4* | \ src/configure.in: i[[3456789]]86-*-solaris2*) src/configure.in: powerpcle-*-solaris*) src/configure.in: sparc-*-solaris* | sparc64-*-solaris* | sparcv9-*-solaris*) src/configure.in: i[[3456789]]86-*-solaris2*) src/configure.in: *-*-solaris2*) src/configure.in: host_makefile_frag="config/mh-solaris" src/configure.in: sparc-sun-solaris2*) gcc-mainline/gcc/configure.in: single | solaris | vxworks | win32 ) gcc-mainline/boehm-gc/configure.in: *-*-solaris*) gcc-mainline/boehm-gc/configure.in: decosf1 | irix | mach | os2 | solaris | dce | vxworks) gcc-mainline/boehm-gc/configure.in: i?86-*-solaris2.[[89]] | i?86-*-solaris2.1?) gcc-mainline/boehm-gc/configure.in: sparc-sun-solaris2.3) gcc-mainline/boehm-gc/configure.in: sparc-sun-solaris2.*) gcc-mainline/boehm-gc/configure.in: sparc-sun-solaris2*|*aix*) gcc-mainline/libjava/configure.in: decosf1 | irix | mach | os2 | solaris | dce | vxworks) gcc-mainline/libjava/configure.in: sparc*-sun-solaris*) gcc-mainline/libffi/configure.in:i*86-*-solaris*) TARGET=X86; TARGETDIR=x86;; gcc-mainline/configure.in: i[[3456789]]86-*-solaris2*) gcc-mainline/configure.in: powerpcle-*-solaris*) gcc-mainline/configure.in: sparc-*-solaris* | sparc64-*-solaris* | sparcv9-*-solaris*) gcc-mainline/configure.in: i[[3456789]]86-*-solaris2*) gcc-mainline/configure.in: *-*-solaris2*) gcc-mainline/configure.in: host_makefile_frag="config/mh-solaris" gcc-mainline/configure.in: sparc-sun-solaris2*) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-12-02 21:45 ` Zack Weinberg 2003-12-02 22:21 ` Ben Elliston @ 2003-12-03 17:22 ` Richard Stallman 2003-12-03 17:23 ` Zack Weinberg 1 sibling, 1 reply; 81+ messages in thread From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-12-03 17:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zack Weinberg; +Cc: eggert, bje, gcc, binutils, gdb > This overstates the amount of work that will need to be done, as the > vast majority of configure scripts will not be affected by this change, > whereas the switch from Autoconf 2.13 to 2.5x required changes to most > configure.in files. The burden is on you to prove that - in the absence of evidence we must assume that most or all configure scripts *will* have to be modified; Don't we know that most programs that use Autoconf don't actually look at the configuration name at all? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-12-03 17:22 ` Richard Stallman @ 2003-12-03 17:23 ` Zack Weinberg 2003-12-03 17:33 ` Arnaud Charlet 2003-12-04 7:42 ` Richard Stallman 0 siblings, 2 replies; 81+ messages in thread From: Zack Weinberg @ 2003-12-03 17:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: rms; +Cc: eggert, bje, gcc, binutils, gdb Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes: > > This overstates the amount of work that will need to be done, as the > > vast majority of configure scripts will not be affected by this change, > > whereas the switch from Autoconf 2.13 to 2.5x required changes to most > > configure.in files. > > The burden is on you to prove that - in the absence of evidence we > must assume that most or all configure scripts *will* have to be > modified; > > Don't we know that most programs that use Autoconf don't actually look > at the configuration name at all? Paul Eggert already presented evidence that roughly 10% of a sample of configure.in scripts not only look at the configuration name, but match it against patterns containing the string "solaris" or "sunos". To my mind that is enough to rule out the proposed change as too costly. And, for the third time, Autoconf is not the only user of config.guess/config.sub. zw ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-12-03 17:23 ` Zack Weinberg @ 2003-12-03 17:33 ` Arnaud Charlet 2003-12-04 7:42 ` Richard Stallman 1 sibling, 0 replies; 81+ messages in thread From: Arnaud Charlet @ 2003-12-03 17:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zack Weinberg; +Cc: rms, eggert, bje, gcc, binutils, gdb > Paul Eggert already presented evidence that roughly 10% of a sample of > configure.in scripts not only look at the configuration name, but > match it against patterns containing the string "solaris" or "sunos". I don't find this surprising. I would also not be surprised if the vast majority actually match against "solaris*", which would be just fine. Arno ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-12-03 17:23 ` Zack Weinberg 2003-12-03 17:33 ` Arnaud Charlet @ 2003-12-04 7:42 ` Richard Stallman 2003-12-04 8:57 ` Branko Čibej ` (2 more replies) 1 sibling, 3 replies; 81+ messages in thread From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-12-04 7:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zack Weinberg; +Cc: eggert, bje, gcc, binutils, gdb > Don't we know that most programs that use Autoconf don't actually look > at the configuration name at all? Paul Eggert already presented evidence that roughly 10% of a sample of configure.in scripts not only look at the configuration name, but match it against patterns containing the string "solaris" or "sunos". To my mind that is enough to rule out the proposed change as too costly. I'm surprised it is so many. As someone pointed out, the real extent of the problem depends on how many of them check the version number as well as the name. It should be pretty easy to measure that too. And, for the third time, Autoconf is not the only user of config.guess/config.sub. The point is that most programs nowadays use Autoconf, so other uses are few. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-12-04 7:42 ` Richard Stallman @ 2003-12-04 8:57 ` Branko Čibej 2003-12-05 17:27 ` Richard Stallman 2003-12-04 10:16 ` Zack Weinberg 2003-12-04 14:22 ` Andrew Cagney 2 siblings, 1 reply; 81+ messages in thread From: Branko Čibej @ 2003-12-04 8:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: rms; +Cc: Zack Weinberg, eggert, bje, gcc, binutils, gdb Richard Stallman wrote: >The point is that most programs nowadays use Autoconf, so other uses are >few. > > Sorry to barge in again, but config.guess is used by lots of things besides programs that use Autoconf; e.g., various sysadmin scripts, testing and compilation frameworks, etc. etc., where Autoconf is inappropriate but config.guess is immensely useful. I've written many such tools myself, and I'd even venture to guess that the numer of such uses is on the same order as the number of Autoconf uses. Config.guess is not just a utility for Autoconf; it's a standalone tool, and any changes made to it should be evaluated in that light. Please don't make incompatible changes without a very good reason. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." --Emerson -- Brane Äibej <brane@xbc.nu> http://www.xbc.nu/brane/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-12-04 8:57 ` Branko Čibej @ 2003-12-05 17:27 ` Richard Stallman 2003-12-05 18:43 ` Zack Weinberg 2003-12-07 23:22 ` Branko Čibej 0 siblings, 2 replies; 81+ messages in thread From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-12-05 17:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Branko Čibej; +Cc: zack, eggert, bje, gcc, binutils, gdb >The point is that most programs nowadays use Autoconf, so other uses are >few. > > Sorry to barge in again, but config.guess is used by lots of things besides programs that use Autoconf; e.g., various sysadmin scripts, testing and compilation frameworks, etc. etc., where Autoconf is inappropriate but config.guess is immensely useful. Are you talking about configure scripts that don't use Autoconf? Or something else entirely? Config.guess is not just a utility for Autoconf; We are miscommunicating; you're arguing against something that is not what I said. config.guess is not "a utility for Autoconf". It's a utility for configure scripts. When we developed the configure spec, there was no such thing as Autoconf. When Autoconf was developed, it made it possible to write configure scripts so that they don't need to care about the name of the system. So config.guess, and configuration names, are less important than they were in the past. Some programs such as GDB still need to check them, but most new programs rely on Autoconf for the whole job. At least I think that's the case for configure scripts. Are you saying that config.guess is widely used outside of configure scripts? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-12-05 17:27 ` Richard Stallman @ 2003-12-05 18:43 ` Zack Weinberg 2003-12-05 18:53 ` Joe Buck 2003-12-07 23:22 ` Branko Čibej 1 sibling, 1 reply; 81+ messages in thread From: Zack Weinberg @ 2003-12-05 18:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: rms; +Cc: Branko Čibej, eggert, bje, gcc, binutils, gdb Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes: > > Are you saying that config.guess is widely used outside of configure > scripts? Yes. zw ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-12-05 18:43 ` Zack Weinberg @ 2003-12-05 18:53 ` Joe Buck 2003-12-06 12:11 ` Nix 0 siblings, 1 reply; 81+ messages in thread From: Joe Buck @ 2003-12-05 18:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zack Weinberg; +Cc: rms, Branko Èibej, eggert, bje, gcc, binutils, gdb On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 09:53:29AM -0800, Zack Weinberg wrote: > Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes: > > > > > Are you saying that config.guess is widely used outside of configure > > scripts? > > Yes. config.guess is used in a number of places to generate the canonical name for the type of system that the user is running on. As an example of such use, consider GCC's test_summary script. This script processes the results of a dejagnu test run and mails in a report. GCC testers use this script regularly so that regressions can be tracked. These reports go to gcc-testresults@gcc.gnu.org and are archived on the web. It uses config.guess to fill in the type of system for which tests are being run. That said, for many uses of the output of config.guess, a change would not cause significant harm. This is especially true for source distributions that contain their own copy of config.guess: the distribution will generally be consistent with the copy of config.guess that it contains. > zw -- Q. What's more of a headache than a bug in a compiler. A. Bugs in six compilers. -- Mark Johnson ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-12-05 18:53 ` Joe Buck @ 2003-12-06 12:11 ` Nix 0 siblings, 0 replies; 81+ messages in thread From: Nix @ 2003-12-06 12:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Joe Buck Cc: Zack Weinberg, rms, Branko Èibej, eggert, bje, gcc, binutils, gdb On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Joe Buck uttered the following: > On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 09:53:29AM -0800, Zack Weinberg wrote: >> Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes: >> >> > >> > Are you saying that config.guess is widely used outside of configure >> > scripts? >> >> Yes. > > config.guess is used in a number of places to generate the canonical name > for the type of system that the user is running on. > > As an example of such use, consider GCC's test_summary script. Have another random example: The repository of (compiled) free software I habitually maintain at every workplace I've ever been in so far has paths for all binaries which contain the canonical name of the system they run on. Because these paths are compiled into a number of those binaries, they can't change safely without fairly large-scale recompilation. (Thankfully, the filesystem supports symlinks, so I can work around this: but it'll still be confusing for users who look inside the appropriate directory and wonder why sparc-sun-solaris2.8 is a symlink to sparc-sun-sunos5.8... pretty much the same `minor barrier' as was originally referred to.) > That said, for many uses of the output of config.guess, a change would not > cause significant harm. Agreed. > This is especially true for source distributions > that contain their own copy of config.guess: the distribution will generally > be consistent with the copy of config.guess that it contains. It's not as though this change will be terrifically damaging, as long as people replacing config.guess check that it still works as expected on Solaris boxes... ... but that check may be unlikely to happen: it's not as though config.guess triplets frequently change, or are *expected* to change. -- `I have some desires that would probably consume the entire lifetime power output of one G-type star.' --- Mark Atwood ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-12-05 17:27 ` Richard Stallman 2003-12-05 18:43 ` Zack Weinberg @ 2003-12-07 23:22 ` Branko Čibej 1 sibling, 0 replies; 81+ messages in thread From: Branko Čibej @ 2003-12-07 23:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: rms; +Cc: zack, eggert, bje, gcc, binutils, gdb Richard Stallman wrote: >Are you saying that config.guess is widely used outside of configure >scripts? > > Yes. For a myriad of purposes. -- Brane Äibej <brane@xbc.nu> http://www.xbc.nu/brane/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-12-04 7:42 ` Richard Stallman 2003-12-04 8:57 ` Branko Čibej @ 2003-12-04 10:16 ` Zack Weinberg 2003-12-04 11:16 ` Ben Elliston 2003-12-05 23:22 ` Richard Stallman 2003-12-04 14:22 ` Andrew Cagney 2 siblings, 2 replies; 81+ messages in thread From: Zack Weinberg @ 2003-12-04 10:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: rms; +Cc: eggert, bje, gcc, binutils, gdb Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes: > Paul Eggert already presented evidence that roughly 10% of a sample of > configure.in scripts not only look at the configuration name, but > match it against patterns containing the string "solaris" or "sunos". > To my mind that is enough to rule out the proposed change as too costly. > > I'm surprised it is so many. As someone pointed out, the real extent of > the problem depends on how many of them check the version number as well > as the name. It should be pretty easy to measure that too. Haven't we wasted enough time arguing about this proposal? The gain is trivial - a tiny inconsistency removed - how can it possibly be worth the effort even of measuring the exact scope of the disruption it will cause? > And, for the third time, Autoconf is not the only user of > config.guess/config.sub. > > The point is that most programs nowadays use Autoconf, so other uses are > few. That turns out not to be the case. cfengine is a good example of a program in an entirely different problem domain that uses canonical system names. zw ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-12-04 10:16 ` Zack Weinberg @ 2003-12-04 11:16 ` Ben Elliston 2003-12-04 21:41 ` Paul Eggert 2003-12-05 23:22 ` Richard Stallman 1 sibling, 1 reply; 81+ messages in thread From: Ben Elliston @ 2003-12-04 11:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zack Weinberg; +Cc: rms, eggert, gcc, binutils, gdb "Zack Weinberg" <zack@codesourcery.com> writes: > That turns out not to be the case. cfengine is a good example of a > program in an entirely different problem domain that uses canonical > system names. I think we can conclude the discussion here. I'm convinced that the proposed change is both (a) trivial enough to not bother wasting any more time arguing over it, and (b) would have too much impact on users (both of Autoconf and auxillary config.* users). Also--thanks to everyone for bringing my attention to uses of these scripts in other domains I wasn't aware of! Ben ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-12-04 11:16 ` Ben Elliston @ 2003-12-04 21:41 ` Paul Eggert 2003-12-04 22:07 ` Zack Weinberg ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 81+ messages in thread From: Paul Eggert @ 2003-12-04 21:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ben Elliston; +Cc: Zack Weinberg, rms, gcc, binutils, gdb Ben Elliston <bje@wasabisystems.com> writes: > I'm convinced that the proposed change ... would have too much > impact on users (both of Autoconf and auxillary config.* users). OK, how about the following more-conservative change instead? This patch uses correct version numbers for future versions of SunOS / Solaris, while leaving the existing incorrect numbers in place. This is an upward compatible change that shouldn't affect existing code that depends on the existin numbers, and this should avoid the backward-compatibility hassles that have been mentioned in this thread. 2003-12-04 Paul Eggert <eggert@twinsun.com> * config.guess, config.sub: Use names like "sunos5.10" for future Solaris versions, thus fixing the incorrect version numbers (like "solaris2.9") in the old scheme. diff -pru config/config.guess config-sunos/config.guess --- config/config.guess Sun Nov 23 21:42:42 2003 +++ config-sunos/config.guess Thu Dec 4 13:29:46 2003 @@ -136,6 +136,43 @@ UNAME_RELEASE=`(uname -r) 2>/dev/null` | UNAME_SYSTEM=`(uname -s) 2>/dev/null` || UNAME_SYSTEM=unknown UNAME_VERSION=`(uname -v) 2>/dev/null` || UNAME_VERSION=unknown +case "${UNAME_SYSTEM}" in +SunOS) + # Solaris 2.0 - 2.6 (SunOS 5.0 - 5.6) are "solaris2.0" - "solaris2.6", + # and Solaris 7 - 9 (SunOS 5.7 - 5.9) are "solaris2.7" - "solaris2.9". + # This numbering scheme is incorrect, and in retrospect it would have + # been better to use SunOS versions (namely, "sunos5.0" - "sunos5.9"). + # However, many configure scripts depend on this behavior, + # so use the traditional scheme for SunOS 5.0 through 5.9. + # Starting with SunOS 5.10, use sunos names uniformly (e.g., "sunos5.10"). + # As SunOS 5.9 and earlier become obsolete the incorrect numbering + # problem should also become obsolete. + + # If you prefer using "sunos" names uniformly, set + # CONFIG_PREFERS_SUNOS="true" in your environment, + # or modify the following line to read "true" rather than "false". + CONFIG_PREFERS_SUNOS_DEFAULT=false + + case "${UNAME_MACHINE}:${UNAME_RELEASE}" in + sun4*:[0-4].*) + case "`/usr/bin/arch -k`" in + Series*|S4*) + UNAME_RELEASE=$UNAME_VERSION ;; + esac ;; + esac + + # Use "sunos" names if they are preferred; otherwise use the + # traditional misnumbering scheme. + CONFIG_PREFERS_SUNOS=${CONFIG_PREFERS_SUNOS-$CONFIG_PREFERS_SUNOS_DEFAULT} + case "${CONFIG_PREFERS_SUNOS}:${UNAME_RELEASE}" in + true:* | *:[0-4].* | *:5.[1-9][0-9]*) + # Japanese Language versions have a version number like `4.1.3-JL'. + sun_os_release=sunos`echo ${UNAME_RELEASE}|sed -e 's/-/_/g'` ;; + *) + sun_os_release=solaris2`echo ${UNAME_RELEASE}|sed -e 's/[^.]*//' -e 's/-/_/'` ;; + esac ;; +esac + # Note: order is significant - the case branches are not exclusive. case "${UNAME_MACHINE}:${UNAME_SYSTEM}:${UNAME_RELEASE}:${UNAME_VERSION}" in @@ -337,29 +374,14 @@ case "${UNAME_MACHINE}:${UNAME_SYSTEM}:$ case `/usr/bin/uname -p` in sparc) echo sparc-icl-nx7 && exit 0 ;; esac ;; - sun4H:SunOS:5.*:*) - echo sparc-hal-solaris2`echo ${UNAME_RELEASE}|sed -e 's/[^.]*//'` + sun4H:SunOS:*:*) + echo sparc-hal-$sun_os_release exit 0 ;; - sun4*:SunOS:5.*:* | tadpole*:SunOS:5.*:*) - echo sparc-sun-solaris2`echo ${UNAME_RELEASE}|sed -e 's/[^.]*//'` + sun4*:SunOS:*:* | tadpole*:SunOS:*:*) + echo sparc-sun-$sun_os_release exit 0 ;; i86pc:SunOS:5.*:*) - echo i386-pc-solaris2`echo ${UNAME_RELEASE}|sed -e 's/[^.]*//'` - exit 0 ;; - sun4*:SunOS:6*:*) - # According to config.sub, this is the proper way to canonicalize - # SunOS6. Hard to guess exactly what SunOS6 will be like, but - # it's likely to be more like Solaris than SunOS4. - echo sparc-sun-solaris3`echo ${UNAME_RELEASE}|sed -e 's/[^.]*//'` - exit 0 ;; - sun4*:SunOS:*:*) - case "`/usr/bin/arch -k`" in - Series*|S4*) - UNAME_RELEASE=`uname -v` - ;; - esac - # Japanese Language versions have a version number like `4.1.3-JL'. - echo sparc-sun-sunos`echo ${UNAME_RELEASE}|sed -e 's/-/_/'` + echo i386-pc-$sun_os_release exit 0 ;; sun3*:SunOS:*:*) echo m68k-sun-sunos${UNAME_RELEASE} @@ -377,7 +399,7 @@ case "${UNAME_MACHINE}:${UNAME_SYSTEM}:$ esac exit 0 ;; aushp:SunOS:*:*) - echo sparc-auspex-sunos${UNAME_RELEASE} + echo sparc-auspex-$sun_os_release exit 0 ;; # The situation for MiNT is a little confusing. The machine name # can be virtually everything (everything which is not @@ -807,7 +829,7 @@ EOF echo powerpcle-unknown-cygwin exit 0 ;; prep*:SunOS:5.*:*) - echo powerpcle-unknown-solaris2`echo ${UNAME_RELEASE}|sed -e 's/[^.]*//'` + echo powerpcle-unknown-$sun_os_release exit 0 ;; *:GNU:*:*) # the GNU system diff -pru config/config.sub config-sunos/config.sub --- config/config.sub Sun Nov 23 21:42:43 2003 +++ config-sunos/config.sub Wed Dec 3 15:04:23 2003 @@ -1110,15 +1110,27 @@ esac if [ x"$os" != x"" ] then + +# Deal with "traditional" names (-solaris*) versus "sunos" names (-sunos*) +# for SunOS 5.0 through 5.9. See config.guess for details. +# If you prefer using "sunos" names uniformly, set +# CONFIG_PREFERS_SUNOS="true" in your environment, +# or modify the following line to read "true" rather than "false". +CONFIG_PREFERS_SUNOS_DEFAULT=false +CONFIG_PREFERS_SUNOS=${CONFIG_PREFERS_SUNOS-$CONFIG_PREFERS_SUNOS_DEFAULT} + case $os in # First match some system type aliases # that might get confused with valid system types. - # -solaris* is a basic system type, with this one exception. + # Traditional -solaris* is a basic system type, with this one exception. -solaris1 | -solaris1.*) os=`echo $os | sed -e 's|solaris1|sunos4|'` ;; -solaris) - os=-solaris2 + case "$CONFIG_PREFERS_SUNOS" in + true) os=-sunos5 ;; + *) os=-solaris2 ;; + esac ;; -svr4*) os=-sysv4 @@ -1135,6 +1147,7 @@ case $os in # -sysv* is not here because it comes later, after sysvr4. -gnu* | -bsd* | -mach* | -minix* | -genix* | -ultrix* | -irix* \ | -*vms* | -sco* | -esix* | -isc* | -aix* | -sunos | -sunos[34]*\ + | -sunos5.[1-9][0-9]* | -sunos[6-9]* | -sunos[1-9][0-9]* \ | -hpux* | -unos* | -osf* | -luna* | -dgux* | -solaris* | -sym* \ | -amigaos* | -amigados* | -msdos* | -newsos* | -unicos* | -aof* \ | -aos* \ @@ -1182,11 +1195,11 @@ case $os in -linux*) os=`echo $os | sed -e 's|linux|linux-gnu|'` ;; - -sunos5*) - os=`echo $os | sed -e 's|sunos5|solaris2|'` - ;; - -sunos6*) - os=`echo $os | sed -e 's|sunos6|solaris3|'` + -sunos5.[0-9] | -sunos5.[0-9].*) + case "$CONFIG_PREFERS_SUNOS" in + true) ;; + *) os=`echo $os | sed -e 's|sunos5|solaris2|'` ;; + esac ;; -opened*) os=-openedition ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-12-04 21:41 ` Paul Eggert @ 2003-12-04 22:07 ` Zack Weinberg 2003-12-04 23:04 ` Arnaud Charlet 2003-12-04 23:11 ` Alexandre Oliva 2 siblings, 0 replies; 81+ messages in thread From: Zack Weinberg @ 2003-12-04 22:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paul Eggert; +Cc: Ben Elliston, rms, gcc, binutils, gdb Paul Eggert <eggert@CS.UCLA.EDU> writes: > Ben Elliston <bje@wasabisystems.com> writes: > >> I'm convinced that the proposed change ... would have too much >> impact on users (both of Autoconf and auxillary config.* users). > > OK, how about the following more-conservative change instead? This still requires a nonzero number of autoconf scripts to change and is therefore unacceptable. zw ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-12-04 21:41 ` Paul Eggert 2003-12-04 22:07 ` Zack Weinberg @ 2003-12-04 23:04 ` Arnaud Charlet 2003-12-04 23:11 ` Alexandre Oliva 2 siblings, 0 replies; 81+ messages in thread From: Arnaud Charlet @ 2003-12-04 23:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paul Eggert; +Cc: Ben Elliston, Zack Weinberg, rms, gcc, binutils, gdb > OK, how about the following more-conservative change instead? This Please don't, that'd be worse. SunOS no longer means anything, so this should really be solaris7, solaris8, solaris9, etc... And solaris10 if this is how the next version of Solaris will be called. While I agree that this issue has already been discussed too much, I also strongly disagree about the apparent conclusion: nobody has provided any real figure about the impact of this change, only assumptions and personal feelings. Also, changing new config.guess won't break existing packages, so we're talking about new packages using new version of config.guess, and a very low amount of packages that will need to be changed. The amount of changes will be lower than the amount of changes required to switch from one version of autoconf to another, and lower or equal to the amount of work required to support a new version of Solaris, so I really don't see any convincing argument for using the wrong names. The official names for Solaris are clear, and I don't see any reason to use non existing versions, leading to clearly incorrect names. Arno ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-12-04 21:41 ` Paul Eggert 2003-12-04 22:07 ` Zack Weinberg 2003-12-04 23:04 ` Arnaud Charlet @ 2003-12-04 23:11 ` Alexandre Oliva 2003-12-04 23:27 ` Joe Buck 2003-12-08 13:29 ` Rainer Orth 2 siblings, 2 replies; 81+ messages in thread From: Alexandre Oliva @ 2003-12-04 23:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paul Eggert; +Cc: Ben Elliston, Zack Weinberg, rms, gcc, binutils, gdb On Dec 4, 2003, Paul Eggert <eggert@CS.UCLA.EDU> wrote: > Ben Elliston <bje@wasabisystems.com> writes: >> I'm convinced that the proposed change ... would have too much >> impact on users (both of Autoconf and auxillary config.* users). > OK, how about the following more-conservative change instead? I like the approach, but I think we'd be better off using solaris10 for Solaris 10/SunOS 5.10, just because then solaris* would still match. Solaris 10 is more like Solaris 2+ than SunOS 4, which most sunos* matches would get. At which point, we could probably do without the preference switches. -- Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist Professional serial bug killer ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-12-04 23:11 ` Alexandre Oliva @ 2003-12-04 23:27 ` Joe Buck 2003-12-04 23:38 ` Zack Weinberg 2003-12-08 13:29 ` Rainer Orth 1 sibling, 1 reply; 81+ messages in thread From: Joe Buck @ 2003-12-04 23:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alexandre Oliva Cc: Paul Eggert, Ben Elliston, Zack Weinberg, rms, gcc, binutils, gdb On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 09:04:38PM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > I like the approach, but I think we'd be better off using solaris10 > for Solaris 10/SunOS 5.10, just because then solaris* would still > match. Solaris 10 is more like Solaris 2+ than SunOS 4, which most > sunos* matches would get. At which point, we could probably do > without the preference switches. Agreed; if we are going to make a change, it should preserve "solaris" and abandon the "sunos". ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-12-04 23:27 ` Joe Buck @ 2003-12-04 23:38 ` Zack Weinberg 2003-12-04 23:41 ` Ben Elliston 0 siblings, 1 reply; 81+ messages in thread From: Zack Weinberg @ 2003-12-04 23:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Joe Buck Cc: Alexandre Oliva, Paul Eggert, Ben Elliston, rms, gcc, binutils, gdb Joe Buck <jbuck@synopsys.com> writes: > On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 09:04:38PM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> I like the approach, but I think we'd be better off using solaris10 >> for Solaris 10/SunOS 5.10, just because then solaris* would still >> match. Solaris 10 is more like Solaris 2+ than SunOS 4, which most >> sunos* matches would get. At which point, we could probably do >> without the preference switches. > > Agreed; if we are going to make a change, it should preserve "solaris" > and abandon the "sunos". I still haven't seen even a weak argument for making any change at all. So the canonical system names are inconsistent with Sun's marketing names; why does anyone even care? zw ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-12-04 23:38 ` Zack Weinberg @ 2003-12-04 23:41 ` Ben Elliston 2003-12-04 23:42 ` Zack Weinberg 2003-12-05 5:00 ` Russ Allbery 0 siblings, 2 replies; 81+ messages in thread From: Ben Elliston @ 2003-12-04 23:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zack Weinberg Cc: Joe Buck, Alexandre Oliva, Paul Eggert, rms, gcc, binutils, gdb "Zack Weinberg" <zack@codesourcery.com> writes: > I still haven't seen even a weak argument for making any change at > all. So the canonical system names are inconsistent with Sun's > marketing names; why does anyone even care? Some people care because the output of config.guess does not match the well-known name by which that operating system and version are known. This is, admittedly, potentially confusing to newbies who think they are using a Solaris 7 system and config.guess tells them they are using Solaris 2.7. Ben ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-12-04 23:41 ` Ben Elliston @ 2003-12-04 23:42 ` Zack Weinberg 2003-12-05 11:46 ` Alexandre Oliva 2003-12-05 5:00 ` Russ Allbery 1 sibling, 1 reply; 81+ messages in thread From: Zack Weinberg @ 2003-12-04 23:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ben Elliston Cc: Joe Buck, Alexandre Oliva, Paul Eggert, rms, gcc, binutils, gdb Ben Elliston <bje@wasabisystems.com> writes: > Some people care because the output of config.guess does not match the > well-known name by which that operating system and version are known. > This is, admittedly, potentially confusing to newbies who think they > are using a Solaris 7 system and config.guess tells them they are > using Solaris 2.7. Okay, but I can't countenance that as justification for any kind of incompatible change, not even one that only changes behavior for as yet unreleased versions of Solaris. (People have already written configure scripts that expect Solaris 10 will be identified as *-sun-solaris2.10.) zw ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-12-04 23:42 ` Zack Weinberg @ 2003-12-05 11:46 ` Alexandre Oliva 2003-12-06 7:05 ` Eric Botcazou 0 siblings, 1 reply; 81+ messages in thread From: Alexandre Oliva @ 2003-12-05 11:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zack Weinberg Cc: Ben Elliston, Joe Buck, Paul Eggert, rms, gcc, binutils, gdb On Dec 4, 2003, "Zack Weinberg" <zack@codesourcery.com> wrote: > (People have already written configure scripts that expect Solaris > 10 will be identified as *-sun-solaris2.10.) Should we care about those who have guessed wrong? I think it would be ok for us to report *-sun-solaris10 for Solaris 10 and above. It wouldn't break the property for earlier OSs. The only catch is that earlier config.guess scripts would (probably) still report sparc-sun-solaris2.10, so newer configure scripts could be written based on this dated assumption and break. But people are encouraged to ship new software using the latest copies of these files, so I don't consider this a big deal. -- Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist Professional serial bug killer ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-12-05 11:46 ` Alexandre Oliva @ 2003-12-06 7:05 ` Eric Botcazou 2003-12-06 20:41 ` Alexandre Oliva 0 siblings, 1 reply; 81+ messages in thread From: Eric Botcazou @ 2003-12-06 7:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alexandre Oliva Cc: Zack Weinberg, Ben Elliston, Joe Buck, Paul Eggert, rms, gcc, binutils, gdb > Should we care about those who have guessed wrong? I think it would > be ok for us to report *-sun-solaris10 for Solaris 10 and above. What if Sun's marketing department renames Solaris 11 into Solaris G3? -- Eric Botcazou ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-12-06 7:05 ` Eric Botcazou @ 2003-12-06 20:41 ` Alexandre Oliva 2003-12-06 21:56 ` Eric Botcazou 0 siblings, 1 reply; 81+ messages in thread From: Alexandre Oliva @ 2003-12-06 20:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eric Botcazou Cc: Zack Weinberg, Ben Elliston, Joe Buck, Paul Eggert, rms, gcc, binutils, gdb On Dec 6, 2003, Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr> wrote: >> Should we care about those who have guessed wrong? I think it would >> be ok for us to report *-sun-solaris10 for Solaris 10 and above. > What if Sun's marketing department renames Solaris 11 into Solaris G3? Well, then it's not Solaris 11 :-) -- Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist Professional serial bug killer ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-12-06 20:41 ` Alexandre Oliva @ 2003-12-06 21:56 ` Eric Botcazou 2003-12-07 9:25 ` Arnaud Charlet 0 siblings, 1 reply; 81+ messages in thread From: Eric Botcazou @ 2003-12-06 21:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alexandre Oliva Cc: Zack Weinberg, Ben Elliston, Joe Buck, Paul Eggert, rms, gcc, binutils, gdb > > What if Sun's marketing department renames Solaris 11 into Solaris G3? > > Well, then it's not Solaris 11 :-) I can't disagree with you :-) But what triplet would you choose for it? Maybe *-sun-solaris3.0. And since they are not that dumb at Sun :-), the next one could be named Solaris G3 Release 2, which would be triplet-ed as *-sun-solaris3.2. So you will end up with the *-sun-solaris2.* series and the *-sun-solaris3.* series and in the middle... *-sun-solaris10. At which point you may want to eat the first Sun employee within your reach :-) I think we'd better keep the current naming [solarisx.y for sunos(3+x).y] for the whole SunOS 5.x series. When the technical guys decide to switch to SunOS 6.x, we'll organize a naming contest :-) -- Eric Botcazou ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-12-06 21:56 ` Eric Botcazou @ 2003-12-07 9:25 ` Arnaud Charlet 2003-12-07 15:26 ` Eric Botcazou 2003-12-07 19:25 ` Zack Weinberg 0 siblings, 2 replies; 81+ messages in thread From: Arnaud Charlet @ 2003-12-07 9:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eric Botcazou Cc: Alexandre Oliva, Zack Weinberg, Ben Elliston, Joe Buck, Paul Eggert, rms, gcc, binutils, gdb > But what triplet would you choose for it? Maybe *-sun-solaris3.0. And since I find that amazing to use hypothetical names in this discussion, it shows that you are running out of arguments :-) The (hypothetical) name would of course be *-sun-solarisg3.0 or something like that, I don't see any problem, so why create one ? Choosing names is not a technical issue, no technical people should not be allowed to choose, based on what they believe is 'The Right Thing' to decide what the 'proper' next solaris version should be :-) I understand that Solaris marketing department has created confusion among part of the technical people, but that does not warrant to get the names wrong forever. This has lead in the past to other strangeness and confusion, the most obvious one being of course to name the pentium 'i586', and then continue with the i686, ... Arno ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-12-07 9:25 ` Arnaud Charlet @ 2003-12-07 15:26 ` Eric Botcazou 2003-12-07 19:25 ` Zack Weinberg 1 sibling, 0 replies; 81+ messages in thread From: Eric Botcazou @ 2003-12-07 15:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Arnaud Charlet Cc: Alexandre Oliva, Zack Weinberg, Ben Elliston, Joe Buck, Paul Eggert, rms, gcc, binutils, gdb > I find that amazing to use hypothetical names in this discussion, > it shows that you are running out of arguments :-) It's called foresight. Never suppose the worst will never happen :-) > The (hypothetical) name would of course be *-sun-solarisg3.0 or something > like that, I don't see any problem, so why create one ? I see a problem: you would have to explicitly special-case *-sun-solaris10 in your patterns. And you would of course forget in some cases. > This has lead in the past to other strangeness and confusion, the most > obvious one being of course to name the pentium 'i586', and then continue > with the i686, ... Which is nice since you can use i?86. I think config.sub can accept whatever fancy names you want, but config.guess should make it easy to parse its output. -- Eric Botcazou ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-12-07 9:25 ` Arnaud Charlet 2003-12-07 15:26 ` Eric Botcazou @ 2003-12-07 19:25 ` Zack Weinberg 1 sibling, 0 replies; 81+ messages in thread From: Zack Weinberg @ 2003-12-07 19:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Arnaud Charlet Cc: Eric Botcazou, Alexandre Oliva, Ben Elliston, Joe Buck, Paul Eggert, rms, gcc, binutils, gdb Arnaud Charlet <charlet@ACT-Europe.FR> writes: > Choosing names is not a technical issue, These particular names exist for programs to process, which makes it a technical issue. zw ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-12-04 23:41 ` Ben Elliston 2003-12-04 23:42 ` Zack Weinberg @ 2003-12-05 5:00 ` Russ Allbery 2003-12-05 12:37 ` Alexandre Oliva 1 sibling, 1 reply; 81+ messages in thread From: Russ Allbery @ 2003-12-05 5:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: rms, gcc, binutils, gdb Ben Elliston <bje@wasabisystems.com> writes: > Some people care because the output of config.guess does not match the > well-known name by which that operating system and version are known. > This is, admittedly, potentially confusing to newbies who think they are > using a Solaris 7 system and config.guess tells them they are using > Solaris 2.7. I've got to say that this is rather unlikely to confuse anyone who's been administering Solaris for any length of time. Heck, every Solaris admin that I know personally called Solaris 7 Solaris 2.7 instead, and Solaris 2.8 wasn't at all uncommon. It's just the actual Solaris version with "2." prepended. I don't think it's going to confuse anyone too badly, and it's the sort of confusion that's pretty readily remedied. (Oh, and please, don't make any version of Solaris identify itself as "sunos" anything. That would break every Autoconf script I have that cares about Solaris as a platform. -solaris10 wouldn't break nearly as much.) -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-12-05 5:00 ` Russ Allbery @ 2003-12-05 12:37 ` Alexandre Oliva 0 siblings, 0 replies; 81+ messages in thread From: Alexandre Oliva @ 2003-12-05 12:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Russ Allbery; +Cc: rms, gcc, binutils, gdb On Dec 5, 2003, Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> wrote: > Heck, every Solaris admin that I know personally called Solaris 7 > Solaris 2.7 instead Just as a funny data point, there is a Solaris admin at the uni who used to mistakenly say Solaris 6 long before Sun changed their naming conventions and released Solaris 7 when everybody was expecting 2.7. I started calling her a psychic visionary at that point :-) -- Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist Professional serial bug killer ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-12-04 23:11 ` Alexandre Oliva 2003-12-04 23:27 ` Joe Buck @ 2003-12-08 13:29 ` Rainer Orth 2003-12-08 22:44 ` Paul Eggert 1 sibling, 1 reply; 81+ messages in thread From: Rainer Orth @ 2003-12-08 13:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alexandre Oliva Cc: Paul Eggert, Ben Elliston, Zack Weinberg, rms, gcc, binutils, gdb Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> writes: > I like the approach, but I think we'd be better off using solaris10 > for Solaris 10/SunOS 5.10, just because then solaris* would still This is completely premature: Sun employees are currently (e.g. during all talks on the Sun Network Conference in Berlin) very careful to only talk about `Solaris Next', since the real name of the beast is not yet clear. So we cannot change to *-*-solaris10 until the product is released. At that time, the will be a considerable number of packages supporting SunOS 5.10 in various ways (I've personally contributed to GCC, am-utils, and ntp), and all of them would have to change again to accomodate the new name. This is a completely unnecessary waste of effort, as is this whole discussion. Fortunately, nobody so far proposed to change alpha*-dec-osf* to alpha*-compaq-osf* to alpha*-compaq-tru64* to alpha*-hp-tru64*... to match Compaq purchasing DEC, the O/S name change and the Compaq/HP merger (and Paul Eggert doesn't seem to be using the platform to worry about this ;-). As you can clearly see from this example, the proposed change is utterly absurd. Rainer ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-12-08 13:29 ` Rainer Orth @ 2003-12-08 22:44 ` Paul Eggert 2003-12-08 23:48 ` Rainer Orth 0 siblings, 1 reply; 81+ messages in thread From: Paul Eggert @ 2003-12-08 22:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rainer Orth Cc: Alexandre Oliva, Ben Elliston, Zack Weinberg, rms, gcc, binutils, gdb Rainer Orth <ro@TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> writes: > Sun employees are ... very careful to only talk about `Solaris > Next', since the real name of the beast is not yet clear. So we > cannot change to *-*-solaris10 until the product is released. That is why my proposal was to switch to -sunos5.10 instead, as that name is more stable (and has already been decided on within Sun). One other advantage of fixing the numbering problem between SunOS 5.9 and SunOS 5.10 is that configure scripts tend to be buggy in this area. For example, they might use a pattern like *-solaris2.[0-6]* to match Solaris 2.0, ..., 2.5, 2.5.1, 2.6, but with the current config.guess this pattern now unexpectedly matches the output of SunOS 5.10 (which config.guess currently calls "solaris2.10"). Since SunOS 5.10 will require maintainers who care about SunOS version numbers to review their configure scripts for unexpected pattern matches anyway, having them convert to -sunos5.10 is no big deal. It may even simplify their patterns a bit. As I understand it, the major suggestions for my latest proposal are: (a) Use -solaris10 rather than -sunos5.10. I argue against this above, basically in agreement with your earlier messages on this subtopic. (b) Wait until SunOS 5.11, since a few packages already deal with prerelease versions of SunOS 5.10. This argument holds less weight than the previous backward-compatibility arguments, since such packages are dealing with prerelease software and have to be prepared to change anyway. I also argued against this above (in the "One other advantage" paragraph). (c) Don't make the change at all; just keep the incorrect numbering indefinitely. Obviously (c) is something I'm against fairly strongly, or I wouldn't have brought up this issue in the first place. I'm quite aware of the entrenched software that depends on the wrong version numbers, but I also feel strongly that we should give operating systems proper names and numbers. This should have been fixed years ago, but better late than never. For (a) and (b), I still prefer my most recent proposed patch, but if Ben prefers a different option I can code it up. Ben, what's your pleasure? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-12-08 22:44 ` Paul Eggert @ 2003-12-08 23:48 ` Rainer Orth 2003-12-08 23:59 ` Zack Weinberg ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 81+ messages in thread From: Rainer Orth @ 2003-12-08 23:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paul Eggert Cc: Alexandre Oliva, Ben Elliston, Zack Weinberg, rms, gcc, binutils, gdb Paul Eggert writes: > That is why my proposal was to switch to -sunos5.10 instead, as that > name is more stable (and has already been decided on within Sun). > > One other advantage of fixing the numbering problem between SunOS 5.9 > and SunOS 5.10 is that configure scripts tend to be buggy in this > area. For example, they might use a pattern like *-solaris2.[0-6]* to > match Solaris 2.0, ..., 2.5, 2.5.1, 2.6, but with the current > config.guess this pattern now unexpectedly matches the output of SunOS > 5.10 (which config.guess currently calls "solaris2.10"). Since SunOS > 5.10 will require maintainers who care about SunOS version numbers to > review their configure scripts for unexpected pattern matches anyway, > having them convert to -sunos5.10 is no big deal. It may even > simplify their patterns a bit. ... and force everyone else (who had their patterns correct or don't require Solaris version-specific handling) to change their configure etc. scripts? For what gain? Why can't you seem to understand the value of backwards compatibility? In all this discussion, the only argument in favor of change has been reduced (newbie) confusion and consistency with vendor nomenclature. I would have thought that my example of the DEC OSF/1 -> Digital UNIX -> Tru64 UNIX name changes together with the vendor change from DEC -> Digital -> Compaq -> HP had made it completely clear that following vendor marketing ideas creates a maintenance nightmare for config.{guess, sub} users, but you don't seem to get that point. Or will your next crusade be to change alpha*-dec-osf* as well? At this point, you cannot even be sure that `Solaris Next' will actually be called `Solaris' at all; maybe they come up with some fancy Java-based name a few days before the release ;-( > (c) Don't make the change at all; just keep the incorrect numbering > indefinitely. > > Obviously (c) is something I'm against fairly strongly, or I wouldn't > have brought up this issue in the first place. I'm quite aware of the > entrenched software that depends on the wrong version numbers, but I > also feel strongly that we should give operating systems proper names > and numbers. This should have been fixed years ago, but better late > than never. (c) is clearly the only option, especially since the only gain of change is consistence with (inherently inconsistent and changing) vendor marketing whims. You could have made this change in the Solaris 2.0 days, but not after the current scheme has been in use for 10 years. Besides, I think this is all moot now since Ben already declared that there will be no change due to the massive impact compared to minimal benefit. Rainer ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-12-08 23:48 ` Rainer Orth @ 2003-12-08 23:59 ` Zack Weinberg 2003-12-10 0:04 ` Paul Eggert 2003-12-12 5:30 ` Alexandre Oliva 2 siblings, 0 replies; 81+ messages in thread From: Zack Weinberg @ 2003-12-08 23:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rainer Orth Cc: Paul Eggert, Alexandre Oliva, Ben Elliston, rms, gcc, binutils, gdb Rainer Orth <ro@TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> writes: > Paul Eggert writes: >> (c) Don't make the change at all; just keep the incorrect numbering >> indefinitely. >> >> Obviously (c) is something I'm against fairly strongly, or I wouldn't >> have brought up this issue in the first place. I'm quite aware of the >> entrenched software that depends on the wrong version numbers, but I >> also feel strongly that we should give operating systems proper names >> and numbers. This should have been fixed years ago, but better late >> than never. > > (c) is clearly the only option, especially since the only gain of change is > consistence with (inherently inconsistent and changing) vendor marketing > whims. You could have made this change in the Solaris 2.0 days, but not > after the current scheme has been in use for 10 years. I agree. zw ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-12-08 23:48 ` Rainer Orth 2003-12-08 23:59 ` Zack Weinberg @ 2003-12-10 0:04 ` Paul Eggert 2003-12-12 5:30 ` Alexandre Oliva 2 siblings, 0 replies; 81+ messages in thread From: Paul Eggert @ 2003-12-10 0:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rainer Orth Cc: Alexandre Oliva, Ben Elliston, Zack Weinberg, rms, gcc, binutils, gdb Rainer Orth <ro@TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> writes: > this is all moot now since Ben already declared that there will be > no change due to the massive impact compared to minimal benefit. Ben didn't say that there would be no change. He merely rejected my original proposal on the grounds of backwards compatibility. Ben hasn't commented on my revised proposal, which addressed his objection by maintaining backward compatibility on all current platforms. > Why can't you seem to understand the value of backwards compatibility? I understand it quite well. I also understand the value of using correct version numbers instead of incorrect ones. There are competing advantages here. Backwards compatibility does not trump all other issues. Otherwise programs like GCC would never withdraw any features, which obviously is not the case. > following vendor marketing ideas creates a maintenance nightmare Yes, and that is why the proposed change improves on the existing config.guess, by avoiding vendor marketing terms like "Solaris" in future (unreleased) operating systems. > will your next crusade be to change alpha*-dec-osf* No; that OS is dying, and isn't worth the effort. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-12-08 23:48 ` Rainer Orth 2003-12-08 23:59 ` Zack Weinberg 2003-12-10 0:04 ` Paul Eggert @ 2003-12-12 5:30 ` Alexandre Oliva 2003-12-12 7:19 ` Zack Weinberg 2003-12-12 21:27 ` Rainer Orth 2 siblings, 2 replies; 81+ messages in thread From: Alexandre Oliva @ 2003-12-12 5:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rainer Orth Cc: Paul Eggert, Ben Elliston, Zack Weinberg, rms, gcc, binutils, gdb On Dec 8, 2003, Rainer Orth <ro@TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> wrote: > (c) is clearly the only option, especially since the only gain of change is > consistence with (inherently inconsistent and changing) vendor marketing > whims. You could have made this change in the Solaris 2.0 days, but not > after the current scheme has been in use for 10 years. There's another reason to change from solaris2.10 to something else: to avoid matches on say solaris2.[0-6]* from matching 2.10. Backward-compatibility is not an argument to make it solaris2.10: it *will* expose brokenness. We could do better by using solaris10, since those that use solaris* will still match, and those that use 2.[0-6]* won't inappropriately match. -- Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist Professional serial bug killer ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-12-12 5:30 ` Alexandre Oliva @ 2003-12-12 7:19 ` Zack Weinberg 2003-12-12 21:27 ` Rainer Orth 1 sibling, 0 replies; 81+ messages in thread From: Zack Weinberg @ 2003-12-12 7:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alexandre Oliva Cc: Rainer Orth, Paul Eggert, Ben Elliston, rms, gcc, binutils, gdb Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> writes: > On Dec 8, 2003, Rainer Orth <ro@TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> wrote: > >> (c) is clearly the only option, especially since the only gain of change is >> consistence with (inherently inconsistent and changing) vendor marketing >> whims. You could have made this change in the Solaris 2.0 days, but not >> after the current scheme has been in use for 10 years. > > There's another reason to change from solaris2.10 to something else: > to avoid matches on say solaris2.[0-6]* from matching 2.10. > Backward-compatibility is not an argument to make it solaris2.10: it > *will* expose brokenness. We could do better by using solaris10, > since those that use solaris* will still match, and those that use > 2.[0-6]* won't inappropriately match. *sigh* Must we continue this? configure scripts (and things which are not configure scripts) already exist which _correctly_ match, say, solaris2.[789] | solaris2.1[0-9] . Not exposing bugs in other scripts that have solaris2.[0-6]* is not a reason to break correct scripts. zw ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-12-12 5:30 ` Alexandre Oliva 2003-12-12 7:19 ` Zack Weinberg @ 2003-12-12 21:27 ` Rainer Orth 1 sibling, 0 replies; 81+ messages in thread From: Rainer Orth @ 2003-12-12 21:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alexandre Oliva Cc: Paul Eggert, Ben Elliston, Zack Weinberg, rms, gcc, binutils, gdb Alexandre Oliva writes: > There's another reason to change from solaris2.10 to something else: > to avoid matches on say solaris2.[0-6]* from matching 2.10. > Backward-compatibility is not an argument to make it solaris2.10: it > *will* expose brokenness. We could do better by using solaris10, > since those that use solaris* will still match, and those that use > 2.[0-6]* won't inappropriately match. But as I wrote before, solaris10 will likely be wrong by the time SunOS 5.10 is released, because it will probably be called otherwise. Just stay with solaris2.* and be done with this nonsense (and discussion). Rainer ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-12-04 10:16 ` Zack Weinberg 2003-12-04 11:16 ` Ben Elliston @ 2003-12-05 23:22 ` Richard Stallman 1 sibling, 0 replies; 81+ messages in thread From: Richard Stallman @ 2003-12-05 23:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zack Weinberg; +Cc: eggert, bje, gcc, binutils, gdb That turns out not to be the case. cfengine is a good example of a program in an entirely different problem domain that uses canonical system names. That is an interesting point. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-12-04 7:42 ` Richard Stallman 2003-12-04 8:57 ` Branko Čibej 2003-12-04 10:16 ` Zack Weinberg @ 2003-12-04 14:22 ` Andrew Cagney 2 siblings, 0 replies; 81+ messages in thread From: Andrew Cagney @ 2003-12-04 14:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: rms; +Cc: Zack Weinberg, eggert, bje, gcc, binutils, gdb > > Don't we know that most programs that use Autoconf don't actually look > > at the configuration name at all? > > Paul Eggert already presented evidence that roughly 10% of a sample of > configure.in scripts not only look at the configuration name, but > match it against patterns containing the string "solaris" or "sunos". > To my mind that is enough to rule out the proposed change as too costly. > > I'm surprised it is so many. As someone pointed out, the real extent of > the problem depends on how many of them check the version number as well > as the name. It should be pretty easy to measure that too. > > And, for the third time, Autoconf is not the only user of > config.guess/config.sub. > > The point is that most programs nowadays use Autoconf, so other uses are > few. Just FYI, there's something of a gap between the theory and the [unfortunate] reality here. To quote GDB's internals doco: ``GDB's host configuration support normally happens via Autoconf. New host-specific definitions should not be needed. Older hosts GDB still use the host-specific definitions and files listed below, but these mostly exist for historical reasons, and will eventually disappear.'' Two observations: - This upstream change would serve as a useful trigger for making a few more of those configurations "disappear". - There's only marginal return in trying to 100% covert programs such as GDB to autoconf (not stopping anyone from trying mind :-). Far easier to let the old systems bit rot and die - trimming them as dead wood in a year or so. Andrew ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} @ 2003-11-20 21:55 bkorb 2003-11-20 23:24 ` Rainer Orth 0 siblings, 1 reply; 81+ messages in thread From: bkorb @ 2003-11-20 21:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc As someone who was originally confused by the strange transforms, I'd suggest any changes be towards minimizing differences from the output from "uname(1)". In this already mutilated case, history needs to prevail: osrev=solaris`uname -r | sed 's/^5\.//'` and if "uname -r" stops prefixing its output with that weirdo "5." thingey, then the version will start being whatever "uname -r" says it is. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-11-20 21:55 bkorb @ 2003-11-20 23:24 ` Rainer Orth 2003-11-20 23:52 ` Bruce Korb 0 siblings, 1 reply; 81+ messages in thread From: Rainer Orth @ 2003-11-20 23:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: bkorb; +Cc: gcc bkorb@veritas.com writes: > As someone who was originally confused by the strange transforms, > I'd suggest any changes be towards minimizing differences from the > output from "uname(1)". In this already mutilated case, history > needs to prevail: > > osrev=solaris`uname -r | sed 's/^5\.//'` > > and if "uname -r" stops prefixing its output with that weirdo "5." > thingey, then the version will start being whatever "uname -r" > says it is. But this change would be weirder than anything else suggested so far: you get solaris5.1 for SunOS 5.5.1/Solaris 2.5.1, and any matching on solaris2* would be gone. If we really want to follow uname, than go for sunos`uname -r` which will remain valid (and recognizable at least by non-newbies) for the forseeable future. But again, this gives tons of maintainers absurd maintenance hazzles for minimal value. Rainer ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} 2003-11-20 23:24 ` Rainer Orth @ 2003-11-20 23:52 ` Bruce Korb 0 siblings, 0 replies; 81+ messages in thread From: Bruce Korb @ 2003-11-20 23:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rainer Orth; +Cc: gcc Rainer Orth wrote: > > > ... In this already mutilated case, history needs to prevail: > > > > osrev=solaris`uname -r | sed 's/^5\.//'` > > > > and if "uname -r" stops prefixing its output with that weirdo "5." > > thingey, then the version will start being whatever "uname -r" > > says it is. > > But this change would be weirder than anything else suggested so far: you > get solaris5.1 for SunOS 5.5.1/Solaris 2.5.1, and any matching on solaris2* > would be gone. Yep. Write that off to a typo, sorry: > > osrev=solaris`uname -r | sed 's/^5\./2./'` > If we really want to follow uname, than go for sunos`uname -r` which will > remain valid (and recognizable at least by non-newbies) for the forseeable > future. But again, this gives tons of maintainers absurd maintenance > hazzles for minimal value. If "uname -r" stops prefixing the version with "5.", then it has changed enough for maintainers to take some note. I think, anyway. :) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
* Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub}
@ 2003-12-02 22:58 Wolfgang Bangerth
0 siblings, 0 replies; 81+ messages in thread
From: Wolfgang Bangerth @ 2003-12-02 22:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc; +Cc: Paul Eggert, Ben Elliston, Zack Weinberg, gcc, binutils, gdb, rms
Zack Weinberg writes:
> And you completely ignored the issue of non-autoconf users of
> config.sub/guess.
Exactly. Just a random note about how some people use config.guess: we have a
testsuite for our library, which heavily exercises floating point. Since FP
units vary between processors, we sometimes get results that differ in the
minor digits of the output, and that's why we store output files for each
platform, canonicalized by config.guess. I.e., we have directories
testsuite/results/i686-pc-linux-gnu
testsuite/results/sparc-sun-solaris2.7
...
If you change the canonicalized name of one of these, this would inflict major
pain on us, since CVS doesn't easily allow to rename directories. I know how
to fix this, but it involves messing with the CVS archive, and it's not a
one-line change.
I consider the proposed change totally useless, and not trivial to work around
in situations as above.
W.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolfgang Bangerth email: bangerth@ices.utexas.edu
www: http://www.ices.utexas.edu/~bangerth/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 81+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-12-12 21:26 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 81+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2003-11-20 12:25 flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} Ben Elliston 2003-11-20 14:03 ` Ben Elliston 2003-11-20 14:12 ` Eric Botcazou 2003-11-20 18:29 ` Rainer Orth 2003-11-20 20:31 ` Paul Eggert 2003-11-20 20:35 ` Rainer Orth 2003-11-20 20:50 ` Albert Chin-A-Young 2003-11-20 21:32 ` Paul Eggert 2003-11-20 21:44 ` Rainer Orth 2003-11-21 0:57 ` Paul Eggert 2003-11-21 1:15 ` Rainer Orth 2003-11-23 12:51 ` Richard Stallman 2003-11-23 23:40 ` Branko Čibej 2003-11-24 8:17 ` Paul Eggert 2003-11-24 8:28 ` Eric Botcazou 2003-11-24 12:08 ` Paul Eggert 2003-11-24 14:35 ` Eric Botcazou 2003-11-24 21:54 ` Paul Eggert 2003-11-25 10:47 ` Eric Botcazou 2003-11-25 23:12 ` Paul Eggert 2003-11-26 6:05 ` Eric Botcazou 2003-11-26 12:05 ` Ben Elliston 2003-11-27 1:58 ` Russ Allbery 2003-11-25 10:07 ` Richard Stallman 2003-11-26 3:49 ` Zack Weinberg 2003-11-20 21:33 ` Eric Botcazou 2003-11-20 21:40 ` Rainer Orth 2003-11-20 23:32 ` Phil Edwards 2003-11-21 23:56 ` tm_gccmail 2003-11-22 0:01 ` Joe Buck 2003-11-27 18:55 ` Zack Weinberg 2003-11-29 1:42 ` Paul Eggert 2003-11-29 2:24 ` Zack Weinberg 2003-12-01 21:29 ` Paul Eggert 2003-12-01 22:09 ` Zack Weinberg 2003-12-02 21:40 ` Paul Eggert 2003-12-02 21:45 ` Zack Weinberg 2003-12-02 22:21 ` Ben Elliston 2003-12-03 17:22 ` Richard Stallman 2003-12-03 17:23 ` Zack Weinberg 2003-12-03 17:33 ` Arnaud Charlet 2003-12-04 7:42 ` Richard Stallman 2003-12-04 8:57 ` Branko Čibej 2003-12-05 17:27 ` Richard Stallman 2003-12-05 18:43 ` Zack Weinberg 2003-12-05 18:53 ` Joe Buck 2003-12-06 12:11 ` Nix 2003-12-07 23:22 ` Branko Čibej 2003-12-04 10:16 ` Zack Weinberg 2003-12-04 11:16 ` Ben Elliston 2003-12-04 21:41 ` Paul Eggert 2003-12-04 22:07 ` Zack Weinberg 2003-12-04 23:04 ` Arnaud Charlet 2003-12-04 23:11 ` Alexandre Oliva 2003-12-04 23:27 ` Joe Buck 2003-12-04 23:38 ` Zack Weinberg 2003-12-04 23:41 ` Ben Elliston 2003-12-04 23:42 ` Zack Weinberg 2003-12-05 11:46 ` Alexandre Oliva 2003-12-06 7:05 ` Eric Botcazou 2003-12-06 20:41 ` Alexandre Oliva 2003-12-06 21:56 ` Eric Botcazou 2003-12-07 9:25 ` Arnaud Charlet 2003-12-07 15:26 ` Eric Botcazou 2003-12-07 19:25 ` Zack Weinberg 2003-12-05 5:00 ` Russ Allbery 2003-12-05 12:37 ` Alexandre Oliva 2003-12-08 13:29 ` Rainer Orth 2003-12-08 22:44 ` Paul Eggert 2003-12-08 23:48 ` Rainer Orth 2003-12-08 23:59 ` Zack Weinberg 2003-12-10 0:04 ` Paul Eggert 2003-12-12 5:30 ` Alexandre Oliva 2003-12-12 7:19 ` Zack Weinberg 2003-12-12 21:27 ` Rainer Orth 2003-12-05 23:22 ` Richard Stallman 2003-12-04 14:22 ` Andrew Cagney 2003-11-20 21:55 bkorb 2003-11-20 23:24 ` Rainer Orth 2003-11-20 23:52 ` Bruce Korb 2003-12-02 22:58 Wolfgang Bangerth
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).