--- Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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?
>
In the light of Akim's definition of --host=foo --build=foo == testing
cross-compile, yes.
> > I also understand Alexandra's need for backward compatibility. But,
> ^ `e' here, which makes me male, in case
> you're wondering :-)
>
Probably should have wondered, the internet is wonderful for hiding such
markings. I meant to check the previous posts for the spelling of your name,
sorry.
> > 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.
>
Good-point. However, as Akim has said before, it would be bugward compatible.
Bug fixes, even if it isn't backward compatible should come under different
scrutiny.
> > 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.
>
But, it would give time for Cygnus (which seems to be the entity affected most
by this change) to adjust to the new scheme with keeping the bugward compatible
options in play. Cygnus would just have to mandate that the necessary changes
be accomplished within a reasonable time frame.
Regards,
=====
---
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/
