From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9252 invoked by alias); 4 Dec 2003 10:11:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 9232 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2003 10:11:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.73.237.138) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Dec 2003 10:11:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 30887 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2003 10:05:56 -0000 Received: from taltos.codesourcery.com (zack@66.92.218.83) by mail.codesourcery.com with DES-CBC3-SHA encrypted SMTP; 4 Dec 2003 10:05:56 -0000 Received: by taltos.codesourcery.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 4 Dec 2003 02:11:13 -0800 From: "Zack Weinberg" To: rms@gnu.org Cc: eggert@CS.UCLA.EDU, bje@wasabisystems.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, binutils@sources.redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} References: <8765hf4c8z.fsf@wasabisystems.com> <87wu9mt79r.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> <871xrs5b9j.fsf@penguin.cs.ucla.edu> <87znegqb31.fsf@codesourcery.com> <87brqsw9d9.fsf@penguin.cs.ucla.edu> <871xroqlaf.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> <87n0aaj4cl.fsf@penguin.cs.ucla.edu> <87wu9esxu6.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> <87ad69rf42.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 10:16:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Richard Stallman's message of "Thu, 04 Dec 2003 02:33:18 -0500") Message-ID: <87y8tsx58e.fsf@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-12/txt/msg00316.txt.bz2 Richard Stallman 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