Harlan Stenn wrote (meaning Linux distribution when he writes OS):
help tool maintainers make choices
about how things that are hard to find out otherwise (like OS-based
choices).
...
everybody who wants to make OS-level decisions has to code their own tests
to figure out the OS name.
Harlan Stenn wrote:
If the releases are all that similar, why not use:
i686-GnuLinux-*
as your test, and provide the popular distributions in the 3rd field?
This is a little more reasonable, since it allows to check for Linux with
a single test. But the fundamental problem remains: your
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Bob Proulx wrote:
If the releases are all that similar, why not use:
i686-GnuLinux-*
as your test, and provide the popular distributions in the 3rd field?
The magic command has a large database of selections on it; using this
sort of mechanism should greatly
On Tue, 2004-01-13 at 13:43, Bruno Haible wrote:
Harlan Stenn wrote:
If the releases are all that similar, why not use:
i686-GnuLinux-*
as your test, and provide the popular distributions in the 3rd field?
This is a little more reasonable,
How would that be basically different
If there was a version number in the Vendor field I'd be lots happier.
In the RH distros I've seen (and the config.guess output on those boxes) I
have still only seen pc for the Vendor field.
H
--
On Tue, 2004-01-13 at 13:43, Bruno Haible wrote:
Harlan Stenn wrote:
If the releases are
I bet you have never tried to deploy this in the real world in an
environment with a useful number of heterogeneous OS installations running
at different OS rev levels.
In my experience this simply doesn't scale. Especially if it gets used in
somebody's shell RC files.
Your approach still
On Tue, 2004-01-13 at 18:18, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Bob Proulx wrote:
If the releases are all that similar, why not use:
i686-GnuLinux-*
as your test, and provide the popular distributions in the 3rd field?
The magic command has a large database of
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 10:53:58AM +, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
| Sorry for having to say this, but IMO, configure scripts relying on
| config.guess'ed values are badly designed and fundamentally flawed.
It's a pity you think that. I always found libtool to be rather
On Thu, 2004-01-08 at 11:53, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
| Sorry for having to say this, but IMO, configure scripts relying on
| config.guess'ed values are badly designed and fundamentally flawed.
It's a pity you think that. I always found libtool to be rather useful.
Harlan Stenn wrote in a footnote:
There are people who think a config.guess output that says:
i686-pc-linux-gnu
is normal, while some of us feel that is a particularly useless value and
would prefer to see something like:
i686-pc-redhat7.3
instead, just like the original documentation
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
11 matches
Mail list logo
