Po Lu wrote:
Jacob Bachmeyer <jcb62...@gmail.com> writes:
No, we are not. CPU-VENDOR-KERNEL-OS-LIBCABI, with at least one of
the latter three omitted, fits the bill. In that case, the reference
to MinGW means that "OS" and/or "KERNEL" are omitted and MinGW is the
ABI. The next logical extension is to allow all five to be present,
to describe systems flexible enough to accommodate multiple ABIs.
We're not trying to change the world here, so let's wait until a more
urgent need presents itself before issuing plans for drastic changes to
a format that has been firmly established for well over two decades,
okay?
I do not see this as planning a drastic change. I see this issue as
acknowledging a change that has already happened unnoticed.
The problem is that that example does exist, so we need to find a
systematic way to accommodate it before more such variant GNU systems
are produced and we have a real mess.
Which systems are distributed in this manner? And what difference does
C library they elect to use for system utilites make towards the
compilation of user programs with Autoconf?
There are several GNU/Linux distributions that either use or can use
musl libc already. (See:
<URL:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Musl&oldid=1164590075>)
Musl libc does not have the same features as GNU libc, so it is rightly
a different ABI target, however, the system is still a GNU variant, so
its configure tuple should still match *-gnu-* for the same reasons that
the GNU project wants to call the overall system GNU/Linux.
To top it all off, considerations for such systems affect the entire GNU
project, and config cannot unilaterally ordain decisions regarding their
treatment. config-patches is definitely the wrong mailing list.
OK then, what is the right mailing list?
-- Jacob
