Harlan Stenn <stenn@xxxxxxx> writes:
> Rainer wrote:
>> Calling a program arm-unknown-linux-gcc isn't particularly
>> useful. Especially if there are two arm-unknown-linux-gcc's which are
>> quite different, each of them needed for a particular
>> cross-compilation environment on the same machine.
>
> Have you seen any of my postings to this list about my 'cvo' script?
Since I have solely send the original e-mail because I do consider
this to be a useful feature and the message asked me to do so, how
could I?
> What you describe is exactly why I wrote it, and if one really has
> multiple cpu-vendor-os-gcc programs that do different things, I'd put
> them in different subdirectories so it was clear from their path what
> their overall function was.
I do not see how this argument could possibly ever lead to
anything. Every 'feature' of some software is
a) considered to be crucial to the well-being of the universe
as such by the person who invented it
b) can be worked around somehow
b) is not an argument in favor of a).
Independently of this, I am in a timezone were it is now 21:30 and at
the end of a long work day spent with beating another auto*-based
buildsystem into submission. I do not usually ignore e-mails, that
would be impolite, but I am starting to have some troubles to
reply in a calm way for fatigue and frustration alone ...
_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
Autoconf@xxxxxxx
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
