> Peter> If you want to make a change I'd claim that it would be much
> Peter> more logical to get rid of AC_CANONICAL_SYSTEM instead and let
> Peter> people explicitly call CANONICAL_{HOST|BUILD} if they want
> Peter> information about the host or build system, whyever they would
> Peter> need that. It's just as bogus to list --build as an option if
> Peter> you don't actually evaluate it (or don't even care, as is
> Peter> probably the case most of the time).
>
> OK. Actually one of the reason why I was against keeping AC_CAN_HOST
> and AC_CAN_SYS was that it is asymmetrical. But if we keep
> AC_CAN_(HOST, BUILD, TARGET), I'm fine.
Ok, it sounds like the main reason folks want to keep 3 macros
is so that --build is not listed in the --help output unless
the package maintainer wants it used.
I am still confused about what situation would actually
call for AC_CANONICAL_BUILD without also calling
AC_CANONICAL_HOST? Also, wouldn't I always need to call
AC_CANONICAL_BUILD when I was using AC_CANONICAL_HOST?
I was under the impression that the whole point of
the --host flag was to tell autoconf that
$host != $build and is therefore a cross compile.
Why don't we just merge the AC_CANONICAL_BUILD macro
into the AC_CANONICAL_HOST macro and not print out
the --build option. The --host option would still
be used to give the cross triple and the --target
option would not showup in the output unless
AC_CANONICAL_TARGET was used in configure.in.
Mo Dejong
Red Hat Inc.
