From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6241 invoked by alias); 10 Dec 2003 00:03:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 6227 invoked from network); 10 Dec 2003 00:03:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO panther.cs.ucla.edu) (131.179.128.25) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 Dec 2003 00:03:24 -0000 Received: from penguin.cs.ucla.edu (Penguin.CS.UCLA.EDU [131.179.64.200]) by panther.cs.ucla.edu (8.11.7p1+Sun/8.11.6/UCLACS-5.2) with ESMTP id hBA039918995; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:03:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from eggert by penguin.cs.ucla.edu with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1ATror-00022x-00; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:03:09 -0800 To: Rainer Orth Cc: Alexandre Oliva , Ben Elliston , "Zack Weinberg" , rms@gnu.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, binutils@sources.redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub} References: <8765hf4c8z.fsf@wasabisystems.com> <87wu9mt79r.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> <871xrs5b9j.fsf@penguin.cs.ucla.edu> <87znegqb31.fsf@codesourcery.com> <87brqsw9d9.fsf@penguin.cs.ucla.edu> <871xroqlaf.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> <87n0aaj4cl.fsf@penguin.cs.ucla.edu> <87wu9esxu6.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> <87ad69rf42.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> <87y8tsx58e.fsf@codesourcery.com> <8765gwvowl.fsf@wasabisystems.com> <87r7zkb6xm.fsf@penguin.cs.ucla.edu> <87llpn0wh4.fsf@penguin.cs.ucla.edu> <16341.3267.380410.190238@xayide.TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> From: Paul Eggert Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 00:03:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <16341.3267.380410.190238@xayide.TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> Message-ID: <878yll1qv7.fsf@penguin.cs.ucla.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-12/txt/msg00159.txt.bz2 Rainer Orth 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.