Re: That config.guess i.86-pc-linux-gnulibc1 reinstate again, now fatal

[Bruce Korb <bkorb at sco dot COM>]

Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> 
>   In message <200007041602.SAA08944@ignucius.axis.se>you write:
>   > When configuring for a *what used to be* a i686-pc-linux-gnulibc1 I get
>   > the following failure when configuring gcc:
>   >
>   >  Configuring for a i686-pc-linux host.
>   >  Created "Makefile" in /home/hp/tmp/gccwrite using "mt-frag"
>   >  Cannot find the GNU C library minor version number.
>   >
>   > This comes from (toplevel) config.if, which (IMHO rightly) expects the
>   > libc1 suffix on the config triple.  Am I the only person seeing
>   > this on a libc1 system?
>   >
>   > I move that the obvious bits be reverted from config.guess as seen below,
>   > at least in the gcc CVS, in wait for the Right fix, which this is not.
>   >
>   > I believe the right fix includes making the lib version test independent
>   > of the ld test.  IMHO, letting the default ld emulation determine what
>   > *library* is used is bad and wrong.
>   >
>   > Note that this patch was rejected by the config maintainer due
>   > to expected word of resolution from Bruce Korb.

I've been out of town for the past 10 days, but I don't have
any mail from the config.guess maintainer.  Here is what I
would recommend:  devise a patch such that when the script
determines that the current host is a Ix86 PC running Linux
that it never exit without producing that information.  If
you need more information, fine, provide that too.  Just do
not exit silently when you already know Ix86-pc-linux is valid.
99.9% of packages are happy with the triplet.  Surely you know
how to do this.

>   > Is there a nice productive proposal how to resolve this config.guess
>   > matter (other than upgrading from libc1 ;-) ?
>   >
>   > Or is this ok to commit for gcc?
>   >
>   > 2000-07-04  Hans-Peter Nilsson  <hp@axis.com>
>   >
>   >     * config.guess [*:Linux:*:*]: Do not match elf_i?86 to *-pc-linux.
> We do not maintain/approve patches to config.guess.
> 
> I believe config-patches@gnu.org or config@gnu.org is the right
> place.
> jeff
> d