On Jun 26, 2000, Earnie Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I must say that I like the --host=cross-compile change.
Even if you explicitly specify the same triplet for --build and
--host? Don't you find this totally counter-intuitive? Wouldn't you
expect `configure' to figure out you're not doing a cross-build if
build and host are identical?
> I also understand Alexandra's need for backward compatibility. But,
^ `e' here, which makes me male, in case
you're wondering :-)
> it doesn't have to be easy to use that backward compatibility.
If it doesn't behave as originally, there's absolutely no point in
doing it. The problem is that the incompatible change that was
introduced broke existing scripts and made documentation obsolete. If
we were to change the spelling of the switch to provide the backward
compatible behavior, scripts and manuals would have to be changed
anyway. But then, they'd obviously be changed to make use of the new
behavior, not the backward-compatible one.
> let Cygnus aclocal these in.
This is obviously an option for Cygnus, but then, Cygnus would be
intentionally breaking compatibility with GNU autoconf, and this might
result in further confusion. That's the reason why I've been trying
so hard to find a reasonable path to give time for people to change
their scripts and documentation, while not annihilating the benefit of
the changes we've decided to make in autoconf.
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist *Please* write to mailing lists, not to me
