[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
08 Nov 2000 15:37:44 +0100
OKUJI Yoshinori <address@hidden> writes:
> From: address@hidden (Niels MÃ¶ller)
> > Perhaps one ought to ask the autoconf people and rms what they think.
> Really. Can you do that?
I mailed rms and the bug-gnu-utils list (I think that's the right list
for autoconf questions). According to rms, the canonical system name
for the "plain" mach-based hurd system should be
"CPU_TYPE-MANUFACTURER-hurd-gnu", not just "CPU_TYPE-MANUFACTURER-gnu"
as I thought. What does the current glibc use? Furthermore,
rms> If it is crucial to distinguish the microkernels, we could
rms> put them in too like this:
rms> or like this:
Miles Bader replied that it makes more sense to switch the hurd and l4
components, giving "CPU_TYPE-MANUFACTURER-l4-hurd-gnu".
Miles> Also this allows one to match against `*-hurd-gnu', which
Miles> seems more natural than requiring people to remember to say
My conclusion so far is that "CPU_TYPE-MANUFACTURER-l4-hurd-gnu" is a
reasonable canonical system name to use.
- configuration, OKUJI Yoshinori, 2000/11/02
- Re: configuration, Ali SHEIKH, 2000/11/02
- Re: configuration, OKUJI Yoshinori, 2000/11/03
- Re: configuration, Ron Farrer, 2000/11/03
- Re: configuration, Niels Möller, 2000/11/06
- Re: configuration, OKUJI Yoshinori, 2000/11/07
- Re: configuration,
Niels Möller <=
- Re: configuration, OKUJI Yoshinori, 2000/11/10
- Re: configuration, Niels Möller, 2000/11/13