--- Mo DeJong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 26 Jun 2000, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> > > I don't buy that: nobody will never change anything in their scripts,
> >
> > If they won't change their scripts, then it's their fault. By warning
> > in advance, we're exempting ourselves from being blamed for the change.
>
> That is an interesting point. Folks that are used to the current
> way will blame anyone that makes a change. It does not really
> matter what the change is, it will "just be wrong". New users
> will never know the pain of the old way, so they will neither
> blame nor thank you. The question you have to ask yourself is
> who do you want to serve and what is best for everyone in
> the long run.
>
Yep, I'm just beginning to understand the setup for autoconfiguration and what
is needed. So, I've come to understand both methods. I must say that I like
the --host=cross-compile change.
> > > Sorry, but this is what I call confusing!
> >
> > It may be confusing for *you*, but I'm pretty sure it won't be
> > confusing for 99% of the autoconf users out there. People hardly
> > understand the difference between --build and --host, and this warning
> > will hopefully get them to read the manual, and then they'll learn
> > about the change in behavior and the real difference between these
> > flags.
>
> I have to chime in on this one because I was one of those new
> users just a couple of months ago. I did not understand the
> difference between --build and --host, I read the manual
> (it did not help much), I looked at examples on the web
> and found that some people were using --target instead
> of --host. All in all it was really confusing. The
> new way seems to be more straightforward (IMHO). The
> part that most perplexed me were the comments telling
> me that --build was almost never used, when to do a
> cross it seems I would need to use --build.
>
All I can say about this, other than agreeing with Mo is that I'm glad I'm
analytically intuitive and intuitively analytical. Conceptualization is
natural for me and I don't have problems with understanding the minutist
documentation. However, I can also understand that minutist documentation can
be more confusing than no documentation at all.
I have yet to do a cross-compile but hope to use Akim's and Mo's patches to do
so when I GARTI. It is easy to understand that --host=cross-compiling and I
think that that is the way it should stay.
I also understand Alexandra's need for backward compatibility. But, it doesn't
have to be easy to use that backward compatibility. How about adding new
switches --bchost, --bcbuild and --bctarget (bc for Backward-Compatible),
although the best solution is to just bite the bullet and leave the changes as
is and let Cygnus aclocal these in.
Cheers,
> > > And you are rejecting the fact that you don't need to specify
> > > --build, you just need --host. This is a huge step backwards!
> >
> > We may have an `I-know-what-I'm-doing' option, such as --Host, for
> > example.
>
> What about a new option --xhost=TRIPLE? That way it would be really
> clear that you would use this option to do a cross compile for
> the given host.
>
> > > I'm asking the question again: can't we enable that stuff only when
> > > given a special option such as --with-old-machine-options-semantics or
> > > whatever?
> >
> > I'll answer again: because this wouldn't solve the problem at hand.
> > There are dozens of scripts and manuals and people out there that
> > expect --host to set the default for --build. These people should be
> > warned in advance that they should now be specifying --build to
> > accomplish that. This will give everybody time to modify their
> > scripts and manuals, and to start using the new behavior. In fact,
> > the change that has already been installed in autoconf is incompatible
> > with the GNU Coding Standards!
> > http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards_42.html#SEC42
>
>
> Actually, the GNU coding standards you mention could
> be read either way. The only time --build is mentioned
> is during a discussion of bootstrapping a cross-compiler
> which is something most people are not going to do.
>
> The GNU documentation only mentions --host in relation
> to cross compiling a regular package, so one could
> argue that the new approach conforms to the
> GNU standards.
>
>
> The way to build a cross-compiler, cross-assembler,
> or what have you, is to specify the option
> `--host=hosttype' when running configure.
> This specifies the host system without
> changing the type of target system. The syntax
> for hosttype is the same as described above.
>
> Bootstrapping a cross-compiler requires compiling
> it on a machine other than the host it will
> run on. Compilation packages accept a
> configuration option `--build=hosttype' for
> specifying the configuration on which you
> will compile them, in case that is different
> from the host.
>
>
> See what I mean?
>
> Mo DeJong
> Red Hat Inc
>
=====
---
Earnie Boyd: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
__Cygwin: POSIX on Windows__
Cygwin Newbies: <http://www.freeyellow.com/members5/gw32/index.html>
__Minimalist GNU for Windows__
Mingw32 List: <http://www.egroups.com/group/mingw32/>
Mingw Home: <http://www.mingw.org/>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/
