From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21418 invoked by alias); 8 Dec 2003 22:35:44 -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 21261 invoked from network); 8 Dec 2003 22:35:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO panther.cs.ucla.edu) (131.179.128.25) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 Dec 2003 22:35:38 -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 hB8MZ3929040; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 14:35:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from eggert by penguin.cs.ucla.edu with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1ATTy3-0001rO-00; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 14:35:03 -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> From: Paul Eggert Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 22:35:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <87llpn0wh4.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/msg00149.txt.bz2 Rainer Orth writes: > Sun employees are ... very careful to only talk about `Solaris > Next', since the real name of the beast is not yet clear. So we > cannot change to *-*-solaris10 until the product is released. That is why my proposal was to switch to -sunos5.10 instead, as that name is more stable (and has already been decided on within Sun). One other advantage of fixing the numbering problem between SunOS 5.9 and SunOS 5.10 is that configure scripts tend to be buggy in this area. For example, they might use a pattern like *-solaris2.[0-6]* to match Solaris 2.0, ..., 2.5, 2.5.1, 2.6, but with the current config.guess this pattern now unexpectedly matches the output of SunOS 5.10 (which config.guess currently calls "solaris2.10"). Since SunOS 5.10 will require maintainers who care about SunOS version numbers to review their configure scripts for unexpected pattern matches anyway, having them convert to -sunos5.10 is no big deal. It may even simplify their patterns a bit. As I understand it, the major suggestions for my latest proposal are: (a) Use -solaris10 rather than -sunos5.10. I argue against this above, basically in agreement with your earlier messages on this subtopic. (b) Wait until SunOS 5.11, since a few packages already deal with prerelease versions of SunOS 5.10. This argument holds less weight than the previous backward-compatibility arguments, since such packages are dealing with prerelease software and have to be prepared to change anyway. I also argued against this above (in the "One other advantage" paragraph). (c) Don't make the change at all; just keep the incorrect numbering indefinitely. Obviously (c) is something I'm against fairly strongly, or I wouldn't have brought up this issue in the first place. I'm quite aware of the entrenched software that depends on the wrong version numbers, but I also feel strongly that we should give operating systems proper names and numbers. This should have been fixed years ago, but better late than never. For (a) and (b), I still prefer my most recent proposed patch, but if Ben prefers a different option I can code it up. Ben, what's your pleasure?