On Wed, 2004-01-07 at 22:51, Harlan Stenn wrote: > > A configure script that has to check for 125 brand names, only for Linux, > > is not only unmaintainable, it also limits the freedom to fork a new > > distribution. > > So for this reason people who write scripts (autoconf or otherwise) who can > successfully use config.guess to decide what the CPU, Vendor, and OS are > (which is what the original specs declared) are now in the position to only > have the OS info for non-gnu-linux boxes, because on gnu-linux boxes > everybody who wants to make OS-level decisions has to code their own tests > to figure out the OS name. IMO, you are forgetting some essential points: * config.guess is a last resort means to help escaping from "helpless situations"
* Using config.guess'ed values means table lookup based configurations. This approach more than once has proven to be unmaintainable. * autoconf's working principle is feature checking. * autoconf is not in a position to dictate the tuples - Distributors dictate them. * There is no strong relationship between "OS" and features. Any system admin (Esp. under Linux) has the freedom to change a particular installation at his/her free will. I.e. any guess on a system's feature based on a config.guess'ed "OS" value is flaky and basically meaningless. > And yes, I am aware that distributions are not OSes, but hey, some of them > are getting close. > > It is a cost shift that is really stupid and wasteful of a lot of resources. I think, your are confused. > In my opinion. Sorry for having to say this, but IMO, configure scripts relying on config.guess'ed values are "badly designed and fundamentally flawed". BTW: If you really think, you want/need different target tuples, nothing prevents you from implementing your own extended/modified config.guess. Ralf
