Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 16:40:51 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: pavenis AT lanet DOT lv
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: config.guess patch for new uname()
In-Reply-To: <B0000097257@stargate.astr.lu.lv>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990805163555.10909A-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Thu, 5 Aug 1999 pavenis AT lanet DOT lv wrote:

> I think it will break many packages as config.guess is in many of 
> them (like gcc-2.95).

That's what I was afraid of.  Many packages don't use config.guess, but 
some very important ones, like GCC, Binutils, and GDB do use it.

> If we are not going to put it in, then I'll leaving
> it for next update of DJGPP port of gcc (maybe gcc-2.95.1)

If many packages need to update config.guess, then I tend to postpone 
this change for a while, and let config.guess be updated first.

I would like to hear opinions about whether we should change `uname' now 
or leave it for the next DJGPP release (i.e. 2.04).