Re: [RFC] GNU autoconf and dpkg-architecture
On Mon, 04 Feb 2002, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 02, 2002 at 10:06:21PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > On Sat, 02 Feb 2002, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> > > There appears to be a disconnect between autoconf and Debian on this,
> > > though. The autoconf docs say (about specifying the system type):
> > Nah, that is just braindamage in dpkg-architecture. It really should return
> > i386-pc-linux-gnu for DEB_*_GNU_TYPE in i386, since THAT is the full GNU
> > type. See #115655
> Yes, I apologize for getting this wrong in the first place.
Hey, no worries. This whole GNU config thing is damn hard to get right, I
know I would have done things differently to autotools-dev had I known back
then what I know now...
> I have an update plan for this. We first have to fix all packages relying
> on the uncanonicalized name that is currently used to allow for both, the
Ouch. That means grepping for dpkg-architecture and DEB_*_GNU_TYPE in all
source packages... better do it now :P
Where is that entire-debian-lintian-lab hosted? It should be good for this.
> Then we can fix dpkg-architecture, and get over it.
And then I can see if I can purge config.sub and config.guess from Debian,
or something equally satisfying :)
> Please help with this. I am swamped in work, and smaller issues like I
> often have to drop or stall for a while.
I shall try.
> I am not so sure about specifying --build and --host unconditionally, but
> you gave good arguments and I am not aware of a situation were it would
> reasonably fail.
And as always, the 0.1% of the packages that need to do it differently can
simply do so -- their maintainers should have no problems at all convincing
us about that, if it is indeed true.
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot