Re: Is this a bug in autoconf? (patch included)

[Peter Eisentraut]

Pavel Roskin writes:

> In this case we have only two situations we should care about - configure
> that is aware of BUILD and HOST and configure that is not aware of them.

That's not the answer either because a package might only care about HOST
(probably the most common case) or only about BUILD (must be pretty
twisted, but who are we to judge). Of course with the newly found wisdom
around here HOST will require BUILD to be run (to call config.guess), but
that's an internal detail. My main concern here is that you shouldn't
print out 

  --build=BUILD      configure for building on BUILD

when the author of configure.in never actually declared that he cares. I
think the cleanest possible choice is to say "If you want to know <X>,
call AC_CANONICAL_<X>".

> I'm not sure whether AC_CANONICAL_TARGET should be dropped.

I'm not proposing to drop it (although I personally could care less), but
it should be moved as far away as possible from build and host and in any
case *not* be made the same macro. The decision to evaluate target is
completely independent from build and host.


-- 
Peter Eisentraut                  Sernanders väg 10:115
[EMAIL PROTECTED]                   75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/            Sweden