Hello Jakub, On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 05:39:49PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 05:36:32PM +0100, Stepan Kasal wrote: > > > My reading of http://sourceware.org/autobook/autobook/autobook_17.html is > > > that the manufacturer part of the configuration name is the manufacturer > > > of the CPU, not "OS vendor" so the former "redhat" was always incorrect. > > > > Agreed. > > That's nice, except that "pc" or "unknown" are completely useless in the > triplets, while having redhat there provides very useful information. if this is your opinion, then you should report that to config-patches@xxxxxxxx As you know, config.guess usually gets copied to the tree by the maintainer (usually by "automake -a"). Whatever version the maintainer happens to have, it gets stored to the release tarball. With that in mind, it seems really ridiculous to maintained a patched version of config.guess for years. If you won't succeed convincing upstream that abusing ("broadening"?) the manufacturer field this way is a good idea, you should rather return to the upstream version. Actually, if you care about the host triplet used for rpm builds, that's something where config.guess is not directly involved. Most spec files call %configure. That macro calls configure with option --build. With that option given, configure does not call config.guess. So it is possible that you would be satisfied if the %configure macro used ./configure --build=i686-redhat-linux-gnu --host=i686-redhat-linux-gnu To achive that, it is sufficient to modify the macro %{_host}. (Macro %{_host_vendor} should probably be modified as well.) No, I do not see the reason for doing this. Should all Linux distributions do the same? But in any case that would be much less harmful that creating confusion with unofficial config.guess copies floating around. Have a nice evening, Stepan -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
