[patch ping] change linux-gnu* -> linux* in libtool files

[patch ping] change linux-gnu* -> linux* in libtool files

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 184 bytes --]

ok to commit to sourceware repo ?

upstream libtool changed libtool.m4 a while back to look for 'linux*)' instead 
of 'linux-gnu*)' ... ive also tweaked the ltconfig accordingly
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: binutils-libtool-generic-linux.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-diff, Size: 740 bytes --]

2006-04-10  Mike Frysinger  <vapier@gentoo.org>

	* libtool.m4: Accept linux* instead of just linux-gnu*.
	* ltconfig: Likewise.  Also accept linux-uclibc* as well as linux-gnu*.

--- libtool.m4
+++ libtool.m4
@@ -739,7 +739,7 @@
   ;;
 
 # This must be Linux ELF.
-linux-gnu*)
+linux*)
   lt_cv_deplibs_check_method=pass_all
   ;;
 
--- ltconfig
+++ ltconfig
@@ -602,7 +602,7 @@
 
 # Transform linux* to *-*-linux-gnu*, to support old configure scripts.
 case $host_os in
-linux-gnu*) ;;
+linux-gnu*|linux-uclibc*) ;;
 linux*) host=`echo $host | sed 's/^\(.*-.*-linux\)\(.*\)$/\1-gnu\2/'`
 esac
 
@@ -1247,7 +1247,7 @@
   ;;
 
 # This must be Linux ELF.
-linux-gnu*)
+linux*)
   version_type=linux
   need_lib_prefix=no
   need_version=no

Re: [patch ping] change linux-gnu* -> linux* in libtool files

[Ian Lance Taylor]

Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> writes:

> ok to commit to sourceware repo ?
> 
> upstream libtool changed libtool.m4 a while back to look for 'linux*)' instead 
> of 'linux-gnu*)' ... ive also tweaked the ltconfig accordingly

Um, why?  The binutils and gdb are owned by and maintained on behalf
of the FSF.  A few years ago the FSF requested that we go through and
change linux* to linux-gnu*, in accordance with the their preferred
name of GNU/Linux.  That's not to say that your patch is automatically
rejected, but it certainly needs some motivation.

Ian

Re: [patch ping] change linux-gnu* -> linux* in libtool files

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1172 bytes --]

On Monday 25 September 2006 13:29, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> writes:
> > ok to commit to sourceware repo ?
> >
> > upstream libtool changed libtool.m4 a while back to look for 'linux*)'
> > instead of 'linux-gnu*)' ... ive also tweaked the ltconfig accordingly
>
> Um, why?  The binutils and gdb are owned by and maintained on behalf
> of the FSF.  A few years ago the FSF requested that we go through and
> change linux* to linux-gnu*, in accordance with the their preferred
> name of GNU/Linux.  That's not to say that your patch is automatically
> rejected, but it certainly needs some motivation.

this has nothing to do with ideological "Linux" versus "GNU/Linux" ... we went 
through this before with the fixing of all the configure targets in 
bfd/gas/ld/gcc/etc...

linux-gnu implies glibc and glibc is not the only libc you can use out there 
with linux

what i've posted allows targets such as foo-linux-uclibc be detected as 
supporting shared libraries ... and down the line when dietlibc/etc... are 
more featureful, they get will benefit automatically when they use 
foo-linux-dietlibc names
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [patch ping] change linux-gnu* -> linux* in libtool files

[Michael Snyder]

On Mon, 2006-09-25 at 13:59 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 25 September 2006 13:29, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> writes:
> > > ok to commit to sourceware repo ?
> > >
> > > upstream libtool changed libtool.m4 a while back to look for 'linux*)'
> > > instead of 'linux-gnu*)' ... ive also tweaked the ltconfig accordingly
> >
> > Um, why?  The binutils and gdb are owned by and maintained on behalf
> > of the FSF.  A few years ago the FSF requested that we go through and
> > change linux* to linux-gnu*, in accordance with the their preferred
> > name of GNU/Linux.  That's not to say that your patch is automatically
> > rejected, but it certainly needs some motivation.
> 
> this has nothing to do with ideological "Linux" versus "GNU/Linux" ... we went 
> through this before with the fixing of all the configure targets in 
> bfd/gas/ld/gcc/etc...
> 
> linux-gnu implies glibc and glibc is not the only libc you can use out there 
> with linux

Not to say you're wrong, but this is the first I've heard
that linux-gnu implies glibc.  Is there someplace where this
is written?

Re: [patch ping] change linux-gnu* -> linux* in libtool files

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 755 bytes --]

On Monday 25 September 2006 14:47, Michael Snyder wrote:
> Not to say you're wrong, but this is the first I've heard
> that linux-gnu implies glibc.  Is there someplace where this
> is written?

common practice ? :)

in the uClibc world we use $arch-$vendor-linux-uclibc to keep things clean and 
sep from the host glibc toolchain $arch-$vendor-linux-gnu ... when we 
proposed adding support for *-linux-uclibc and *-linux-newlib and 
*-linux-dietlibc to binutils, the cleaner solution was to simply accept 
*-linux-* in configure files

upstream libtool changed their files a while ago to accept 'linux*)' rather 
than 'linux-gnu*)' ... so my patch isnt treading into new territory, it's 
backporting updates from upstream libtool
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [patch ping] change linux-gnu* -> linux* in libtool files

[Michael Snyder]

On Mon, 2006-09-25 at 15:07 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 25 September 2006 14:47, Michael Snyder wrote:
> > Not to say you're wrong, but this is the first I've heard
> > that linux-gnu implies glibc.  Is there someplace where this
> > is written?
> 
> common practice ? :)

Well... not so common that I've heard of it...

> in the uClibc world we use $arch-$vendor-linux-uclibc to keep things clean and 
> sep from the host glibc toolchain $arch-$vendor-linux-gnu ... when we 
> proposed adding support for *-linux-uclibc and *-linux-newlib and 
> *-linux-dietlibc to binutils, the cleaner solution was to simply accept 
> *-linux-* in configure files

That may be sound -- but uClibc is not the world.  Who else is doing 
something similar?


> upstream libtool changed their files a while ago to accept 'linux*)' rather 
> than 'linux-gnu*)' ... so my patch isnt treading into new territory, it's 
> backporting updates from upstream libtool

Cool -- but libtool, while widely used, is not the world either.
The world, in this context, is {fsf/gnu} or maybe {fsf/gnu/linux},
of which libtool is certainly a part -- but I'm not sure if we 
traditionally 'backport' changes from libtool into binutils without
question.

Re: [patch ping] change linux-gnu* -> linux* in libtool files

[Paul Brook]

On Monday 25 September 2006 20:20, Michael Snyder wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-09-25 at 15:07 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Monday 25 September 2006 14:47, Michael Snyder wrote:
> > > Not to say you're wrong, but this is the first I've heard
> > > that linux-gnu implies glibc.  Is there someplace where this
> > > is written?
> >
> > common practice ? :)
>
> Well... not so common that I've heard of it...

When using uclibc/newlib/some other libc there's a fair chance the target 
system contains no GNU software whatsoever, so *-linux-gnu seems 
inappropriate.

If linux-gnu doesn't mean glibc, what exactly does it mean?

Paul

Re: [patch ping] change linux-gnu* -> linux* in libtool files

[Ian Lance Taylor]

Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> writes:

> upstream libtool changed their files a while ago to accept 'linux*)' rather 
> than 'linux-gnu*)' ... so my patch isnt treading into new territory, it's 
> backporting updates from upstream libtool

If this is just backporting changes from upstream libtool I have no
objection.

Ian

Re: [patch ping] change linux-gnu* -> linux* in libtool files

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 939 bytes --]

On Monday 25 September 2006 15:20, Michael Snyder wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-09-25 at 15:07 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > in the uClibc world we use $arch-$vendor-linux-uclibc to keep things
> > clean and sep from the host glibc toolchain $arch-$vendor-linux-gnu ...
> > when we proposed adding support for *-linux-uclibc and *-linux-newlib and
> > *-linux-dietlibc to binutils, the cleaner solution was to simply accept
> > *-linux-* in configure files
>
> That may be sound -- but uClibc is not the world.  Who else is doing
> something similar?

i'm not sure i know what you mean by "who else" ... if you mean project wise, 
gcc, binutils, and gdb work with the linux-uclibc tuples as designed ... the 
libtool patch i posted is pretty much the last piece needed to take a vanilla 
binutils tarball and have it just work

all the target/host pieces have been fixed up to accept linux* instead of just 
linux-gnu*
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [patch ping] change linux-gnu* -> linux* in libtool files

[Thiemo Seufer]

Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> writes:
> 
> > ok to commit to sourceware repo ?
> > 
> > upstream libtool changed libtool.m4 a while back to look for 'linux*)' instead 
> > of 'linux-gnu*)' ... ive also tweaked the ltconfig accordingly
> 
> Um, why?  The binutils and gdb are owned by and maintained on behalf
> of the FSF.  A few years ago the FSF requested that we go through and
> change linux* to linux-gnu*, in accordance with the their preferred
> name of GNU/Linux.  That's not to say that your patch is automatically
> rejected, but it certainly needs some motivation.

By now there are linux-gnu and linux-uclibc, a C library independent
check would need to match both.


Thiemo

Re: [patch ping] change linux-gnu* -> linux* in libtool files

[Nick Clifton]

Hi Mike,

> 2006-04-10  Mike Frysinger  <vapier@gentoo.org>
> 
> 	* libtool.m4: Accept linux* instead of just linux-gnu*.
> 	* ltconfig: Likewise.  Also accept linux-uclibc* as well as linux-gnu*.

Approved - please apply.

Cheers
   Nick