Re: config.sub, upstream author responsibility?
On Fri, Jun 01, 2001 at 06:43:43PM +0200, Alwyn Schoeman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 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 responsibility?
This the _fault_ of the upstream author for using a build system that
refuses to build something even in a generic way if its included
database doesn't include it. Such build systems aren't
forward-compatible and tend to be braindead.
Why does autoconf do this in the first place? It forces all of this
information to be present, but usually just calls cc, which is
somewhat standard. Can't configure scripts at least _try_ to work with
defaults if they don't know about the platform?
Reply to: