Paul Eggert wrote:
>For most of those sorts of things it is better to use the Autoconf
>approach, where you test for the features that you need, rather than
>guessing the list of supported features from the canonical system name
Makes sense to me. And it shouldn't be that difficult to set up th
Just point people to www.mingw.org and it's Minimal SYStem package,
MSYS, and it's MinGW package. :)
Advantage:
: The configure script already executes properly.
: It's open source.
: It uses gcc+binutils+gmake.
Earnie.
> > If making config.guess return useful/normal values is a goal, then
> > lets get rid of the cpu-vendor-linux-gnu braindamage
>
> To do that you'll first need to fix the GNU coding standards, which
> specify the behavior here. (It is a controversial area, so you'll
> have to make a good case.
> From: Harlan Stenn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 03:39:04 -0400
>
> If making config.guess return useful/normal values is a goal, then
> lets get rid of the cpu-vendor-linux-gnu braindamage
To do that you'll first need to fix the GNU coding standards, which
specify the behavior
If making config.gues return useful/normal values is a goal, then lets get
rid of the cpu-vendor-linux-gnu braindamage and start returning the
documented (and IMO more useful) behavior, where the 3rd piece of the
CPU-VENDOR-OS string is the OS name/version.
Values like i686-pc-redhat7.2, for exam
