Re: config.sub, upstream author responsibility?
Adrian Bunk <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Fri, 1 Jun 2001, Alwyn Schoeman wrote:
>> I just got a bug report on one of my packages that it doesn't recognise a
>> specific hardware platform and requires a new config.sub. As this
>> is part of the original source code, is this the upstream author's
>> If so, is the only thing I can do to request an update by that author or can
>> I actually go change it?
> You should request an update by the upstream author, but (at least for
> DFSG programs) you should update the file yourself when there's no
> upstream version with the updated file in the near future - replacing
> config.sub and config.guess with newer version is usually a save change to
> a package.
But not always. For example, there was a time last year that
'config.guess' used to identify x86 GNU/Linux machines as, say
while it currently identifies them as
There are lots of 'configure.in's that have
case $host in
So, casual upgrades of config.guess are usually safe, but not always.
'config.sub' maybe safer to upgrade, though.
Raja R Harinath ------------------------------ email@example.com
"When all else fails, read the instructions." -- Cahn's Axiom
"Our policy is, when in doubt, do the right thing." -- Roy L Ash