This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub}
- From: "Zack Weinberg" <zack at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Paul Eggert <eggert at CS dot UCLA dot EDU>
- Cc: Ben Elliston <bje at wasabisystems dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com, gdb at sources dot redhat dot com, rms at gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 13:40:01 -0800
- 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>
Paul Eggert <eggert@CS.UCLA.EDU> writes:
> "Zack Weinberg" <zack@codesourcery.com> writes:
>
>> I think it's roughly comparable to the disruption involved in the
>> switch from autoconf 2.13 to autoconf 2.5x -- every last configure
>> script on the planet is going to have to be audited for problems,
>
> This overstates the amount of work that will need to be done, as the
> vast majority of configure scripts will not be affected by this change,
> whereas the switch from Autoconf 2.13 to 2.5x required changes to most
> configure.in files.
The burden is on you to prove that - in the absence of evidence we
must assume that most or all configure scripts *will* have to be
modified; certainly they will all have to be *examined*, which is a
nontrivial amount of work in itself. And you completely ignored the
issue of non-autoconf users of config.sub/guess.
zw