Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub}

[Paul Eggert <eggert@CS.UCLA.EDU>]

Rainer Orth <ro@TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> writes:

> this is all moot now since Ben already declared that there will be
> no change due to the massive impact compared to minimal benefit.

Ben didn't say that there would be no change.  He merely rejected my
original proposal on the grounds of backwards compatibility.  Ben
hasn't commented on my revised proposal, which addressed his objection
by maintaining backward compatibility on all current platforms.

> Why can't you seem to understand the value of backwards compatibility?

I understand it quite well.  I also understand the value of using
correct version numbers instead of incorrect ones.  There are
competing advantages here.  Backwards compatibility does not trump all
other issues.  Otherwise programs like GCC would never withdraw any
features, which obviously is not the case.

> following vendor marketing ideas creates a maintenance nightmare

Yes, and that is why the proposed change improves on the existing
config.guess, by avoiding vendor marketing terms like "Solaris" in
future (unreleased) operating systems.

> will your next crusade be to change alpha*-dec-osf*

No; that OS is dying, and isn't worth the effort.