Hello, Akim!
> So now I think we can clearly state the question:
>
> Should an arg to configure be considered as a --build.
Since "configure --help" used to print
Usage: ./configure [OPTION]... [VAR=VALUE]... [HOST]
we should not change [HOST] to [BUILD] without concerns about backward
compatability. If an option was incorrectly documented, it is often a good
idea to remove or rename it.
Also look at this:
$ ./configure a b
configure: error: can only configure for one host and one target at a time
"build" is not mentioned.
The arguments without leading dashes are normally used for the most
essential options, such as files to process (cat), scripts to run (sed) or
mode of operation (libtool).
With all my respect to crosscomiling issues, I don't think that --host or
--build deserve to be ranked as "mode of operation"
It used to be "mode of operation" in the old days of table-driven
"configure" scripts, but nowadays, when "configure" actually tests for
most features instead of guessing them, canonical hostnames lost their
importance.
Let's make autoconf more symmetric. I vote for removal of HOST without
arguments. Making it BUILD will make things even worse.
Regards,
Pavel Roskin
