From: "Zack Weinberg" <zack@codesourcery.com>
To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com>
Cc: Rainer Orth <ro@TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>,
Paul Eggert <eggert@CS.UCLA.EDU>,
Ben Elliston <bje@wasabisystems.com>,
rms@gnu.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, binutils@sources.redhat.com,
gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub}
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 07:19:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8765gmzjcr.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <or3cbqsj61.fsf@livre.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> (Alexandre Oliva's message of "12 Dec 2003 03:24:06 -0200")
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-12-12 5:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 81+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-11-20 12:25 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 [this message]
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
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=8765gmzjcr.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com \
--to=zack@codesourcery.com \
--cc=aoliva@redhat.com \
--cc=binutils@sources.redhat.com \
--cc=bje@wasabisystems.com \
--cc=eggert@CS.UCLA.EDU \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gdb@sources.redhat.com \
--cc=rms@gnu.org \
--cc=ro@TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).