2 messages, 2 authors, 2001-03-30 · open the first message on its own page
From: David Edelsohn <hidden>
Date: 2001-03-30 05:29:12
The configuration target is powerpc-*-linux, not ppc-*-linux. At best ppc-* could be converted to powerpc-*. It's too bad that people made the wrong assumption about the configuration name, but there is not reason to encourage that. David ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
From: Henry Worth <hidden>
Date: 2001-03-30 14:59:15
David Edelsohn wrote:
The configuration target is powerpc-*-linux, not ppc-*-linux.
At best ppc-* could be converted to powerpc-*. It's too bad that people
made the wrong assumption about the configuration name, but there is not
reason to encourage that.
DavidAnd what gods defined and documented it??? A lot of packages are broke this way. My system has current config scripts, config.guess/sub return powerpc-*. The xine configure even uses them and has a $host that is powerpc-* and without ppc-* in the case will display an unsupported message using $host which displays powerpc-*. But, for some reason they use the un-canonized $host_alias for the case statement which is ppc-*. The bottom line is configure is a pile of overly convoluted, underdocumented &*##. Most package maintainers just copy from some other already broken package and hack-n-slash till it works on their x86 platform and leave it at that. Getting pedantic about powerpc-* gets us nowhere. ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/