From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26488 invoked by alias); 20 Nov 2003 14:12:32 -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 26455 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2003 14:12:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailout.TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE) (129.70.136.245) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 Nov 2003 14:12:32 -0000 Received: from xayide.TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE.TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE (xayide.TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE [129.70.137.35]) by momotombo.TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE (8.11.7p1+Sun/8.11.6/TechFak/2003/04/16/pk) with ESMTP id hAKECT108117; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 15:12:29 +0100 (MET) To: Ben Elliston Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, binutils@sources.redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com, rms@gnu.org, eggert@cs.ucla.edu Subject: Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} References: <8765hf4c8z.fsf@wasabisystems.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.106) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Rainer Orth Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 18:29:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: Ben Elliston's message of "20 Nov 2003 20:31:40 +1100" Message-ID: X-SW-Source: 2003-11/txt/msg01113.txt.bz2 Ben Elliston 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