Home Original page

flag day for Solaris portions of config.{guess,sub}

Zack Weinberg zack@codesourcery.com
Fri Dec 12 05:38:00 GMT 2003 
Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> writes:

> On Dec  8, 2003, Rainer Orth <ro@TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> wrote:
>
>> (c) is clearly the only option, especially since the only gain of change is
>> consistence with (inherently inconsistent and changing) vendor marketing
>> whims.  You could have made this change in the Solaris 2.0 days, but not
>> after the current scheme has been in use for 10 years.
>
> There's another reason to change from solaris2.10 to something else:
> to avoid matches on say solaris2.[0-6]* from matching 2.10.
> Backward-compatibility is not an argument to make it solaris2.10: it
> *will* expose brokenness.  We could do better by using solaris10,
> since those that use solaris* will still match, and those that use
> 2.[0-6]* won't inappropriately match.

*sigh* Must we continue this?

configure scripts (and things which are not configure scripts) already
exist which _correctly_ match, say, solaris2.[789] | solaris2.1[0-9] .
Not exposing bugs in other scripts that have solaris2.[0-6]* is not a
reason to break correct scripts.

zw
More information about the Binutils mailing list