[Moving the discussion to autoconf@xxxxxxx] Hi, I've recently sent two patches against config.sub to config-patches@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/config-patches/2013-02/msg00000.html http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/config-patches/2013-02/msg00001.html Yann Droneaud (2): config.sub: use $name instead of $1 config.sub: be more liberal on input case: accept upper case name I tried to explain the reasonning behind those patches in the following thread: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/config-patches/2013-02/msg00002.html Those patches are to be used as part of a kind of a workaround for the need to give a --build option when using --host option as part of a cross-compilation. When running ./configure --host=<triplet>, I'm getting configure: WARNING: if you wanted to set the --build type, don't use --host. If a cross compiler is detected then cross compile mode will be used It's explain in: 14.1 Specifying target triplets "For historical reasons, whenever you specify `--host', be sure to specify `--build too'; this will be fixed in the future. So, to enter cross-compilation mode, use a command like this" http://www.gnu.org/savannah-checkouts/gnu/autoconf/manual/autoconf-2.69/html_node/Specifying-Target-Triplets.html#Specifying-Target-Triplets So to create a "valid" --build argument, I was going to use --build=`uname -p`-`uname -s` but its producing 'x86_64-Linux' which is not recognized by config.sub. I was surprised by the behavor and made patches to allow config.sub to recognize this string. Even if I think config.sub should be more liberal in its input, autoconf and ./configure script should probably be fixed to not require a --build option when cross-compiling. Could people on the list give some advice on this subject ? Regards. -- Yann Droneaud OPTEYA _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
