On 10/18/2017 7:26 PM, Steven Penny wrote: > On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 08:45:11, Marco Atzeri wrote: >> For a regex pattern you should include both. >> I do not bore which one is built and distributed on my packages. >> >> E.G. on octave >> >> /usr/lib/octave/site/oct/i686-pc-cygwin >> /usr/lib/octave/site/oct/x86_64-unknown-cygwin > > This is certainly not right. I can understand that we will have some > discrepancies across packages, but having a different vendor in the same > package > is unacceptable. It suggests that x86_64-unknown-cygwin and i686-pc-cygwin > differ in more ways that one, which they dont. you let it slide, then > people > start asking: >
I can live with the historical i*-pc-cygwin mishap. > - where is x86_64-pc-cygwin? This I cannot live with and the package maintainers need to target x86_64-unknown-cygwin instead. GCC has a target build of x86_64-pc-cygwin, it needs corrected! > - where is i686-unknown-cygwin? > This should never exist under the current scheme. It should always be i*-pc-cygwin. -- cyg Simple -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
