[Jan Vroonhof <firstname.lastname@example.org>] Re: [configure: feature request] Support configuration like `i386-linux'.
--- Begin Message ---
- To: email@example.com (Karl M. Hegbloom)
- Cc: XEmacs Beta <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: [configure: feature request] Support configuration like `i386-linux'.
- From: Jan Vroonhof <email@example.com>
- Date: 17 Dec 1999 13:51:02 +0100
- Message-id: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <email@example.com>
firstname.lastname@example.org (Karl M. Hegbloom) writes:
> I would like if I could say `configure i386-linux', rather than
> `configure i386-debian-linux'. Here's why (one paragraph at top of
> .1 Architecture specification strings
> If a program needs to specify an architecture specification string
> in some place, the following format has to be used:
That idea seems broken to me. Configure machine types always have been
> Note, that we don't want to use `<arch>-debian-linux' to apply to
> the rule `architecture-vendor-os' since this would make our
> programs incompatible to other Linux distributions.
I would even prefer that they used <arch>-debian-linux since that is a
good indication of the distribution used to compile it. Yet another
data point to go by.
I am not sure why that string would make them incompatible but even if
that is so, it doesn't help much as Redhat uses i686-redhat-linux
--- End Message ---